Naj Ahmad Khan @ Pappu Khan vs The State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.851 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2026 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Naj Ahmad Khan @ Pappu Khan S/O Late Manir Ahmad Khan Resident of
village- bairiya, P.s.- Keshariya, District- East Champaran motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. Bihar
3. The Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. Bihar
4. The S.H.O., Kesariya Police Station, East Champaran, Motihari. Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : S.C 23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-06-2026
The present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:
“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate
Writ to quash the F.I.R. of Kesariya P.S.
Case No. 127/2026 dated 21.3.2026,
registered u/s. 126(2) / 115(2) / 191(2) /
191(3) /190 /109 /132 /352 /351(2) of
B.N.S., 2023 to the extent of the petitioner
above named.
(ii) For the issuance of an appropriate
Writ/Direction to the Respondents
prohibiting them to take any coercive step
against the petitioner in the abovenoted
case.
(iii) For the issuance of any other

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
2/8
appropriate Writ/Direction to the
respondents as your Lordships may deem
fit and proper for the ends of Justice.
(iv) For the issuance of an appropriate
Writ/Direction to the respondents to
secure the constitutional right of the
petitioner.”
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner a politician and his wife is Prakhand Pramukh of
Kesariya Prakhand. The petitioner has also fought the Assembly
rd
Elections and secured 3 position. Due to political rivalry, he is
being made accused in a number of cases. Kesariya P.S. Case
No. 127 of 2026 has been instituted against the petitioner in the
background of registration of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of
2026. Now Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 has been
registered against the petitioner and other coaccused as a report
was submitted on application of the petitioner for grant of
license for a second firearm mentioning that petitioner has no
criminal antecedent. Subsequently, it came to the notice that
petitioner has altogether 23 criminal antecedents and a wrong
report was submitted at the instance of the petitioner but the
petitioner could not have any role in submission of such wrong
report and it could be presumed that the authorities themselves
submitted a false report so that the petitioner could be made

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
3/8
accused in that case. In this backdrop of the fact with allegation
of conspiracy against the petitioner in getting a false report
being submitted for his criminal antecedents in Kesariya P.S.
Case No. 127 of 2026, it has been alleged that when the police
went for investigation in Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026,
the petitioner and other coaccused persons threatened and
assaulted the police party but the allegations are completely
mala fide as it is not believable that for investigation in Kesariya
P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026 police party would go to the house of
the petitioner. When the petitioner has no role in Kesariya P.S.
Case No. 126 of 2026 there was no need to investigate the
matter by going to the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel
further submits that it appears that due to political rivalry, the
petitioner is being dragged in this case. Learned counsel further
submits that considering the mala fide nature of FIR of Kesariya
P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026, the same may be quashed.
03. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State/respondents, at the outset, submits that the petitioner is a
habitual offender and has a long criminal history. He is accused
in altogether 23 cases. Even some of the persons who have been
made accused along with the petitioner in Kesariya P.S. Case
No. 126 of 2026, also bear criminal antecedents ranging from

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
4/8
one to five cases. Learned counsel further submits that the
investigation is still under progress and evidence is being
collected. The petitioner is the prime accused in Kesariya P.S.
Case no. 127 of 2026 and when the police went to arrest the
petitioner, the police team was assaulted and the facts clearly
show commission of offences under Section 126(2), 115(2),
191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 132, 352, 351(2) of the BNS. Learned
counsel further submits that the allegation of mala fide is false
as the petitioner is having antecedent of large number of cases
and merely saying that Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026
shows mala fide of the prosecution is wrong and incorrect as the
ultimate beneficiary of false report was the petitioner who
sought issuance of license for second firearm. Learned counsel
thus submits that there is no merit in the present writ petition
and the same may be dismissed.
04. Perused the record.
05. Kesariya P.S. Case no. 127 of 2026 has been
registered with allegation that when the police party reached the
house of the petitioner while investigating Kesariya P.S. Case
no. 126 of 2026, the petitioner and other coaccused persons
became violent and a mob assembled on call of the petitioner
and at the instigation of the petitioner, other coaccused persons

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
5/8
and the mob assaulted the police party with lathi, phatha and
iron rod causing injuries to them. The petitioner could not be
arrested. Some video and photographs were also taken.
Therefore, the contents of the FIR clearly show commission of
cognizable offences. So far as submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner about police acting in mala fide manner is
concerned, Kesariya P.S. Case no. 126 of 2026 has been
registered while verifying the facts about submission of false
report in favour of the petitioner by a police personnel who
submitted a false investigation report of criminal antecedents of
the petitioner. If the petitioner applied for a second firearm
license and some report was being submitted showing nil
criminal antecedent against the petitioner the ultimate
beneficiary would have been the petitioner. Apart from that a
number of forgeries would have been committed while
preparing this report. Merely saying that the petitioner has no
role in submission of such false report would not cut much ice..
For the simple reason that whoever was involved in such
forgery, the same was being done to benefit the petitioner. In
these circumstances and considering the long criminal history of
the petitioner, I do not think imputation of mala fide of
prosecution is sustainable. Therefore, I am of the opinion that

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
6/8
the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for quashing
of FIR of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026.
06. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 102 of
the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 has cited
certain instances where the FIR could be quashed and the same
reads as under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of
the various relevant provisions of the Code
under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either
to prevent abuse of the process of any court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
7/8
(2) Where the allegations in the first
informant report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of nay offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
persons can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code
or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.851 of 2026 dt.19-06-2026
8/8
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
07. It is apparent that the case of the petitioner is not
covered under any of the instances/guidelines mentioned in the
case of State of Haryana (supra). Therefore, finding no merit in
the present petition, the same is dismissed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE -
Uploading Date 22.06.2026
Transmission Date 22.06.2026