BASUDEO PRASAD SINGH vs THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14460 of 2024
CNR No. BRHC010092202024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2020 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
BASUDEO PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE MADHO PRASAD SINGH
AT PRESENT- TRAFFIC INSPECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF OPERATING,
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, VAISHALI
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR BIHAR
2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF OPERATION MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY, HAJIPUR BIHAR
3. THE CHIEF PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION MANAGER, E.C.
RAILWAY, HAJIPUR BIHAR
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF OPERATION MANAGER CUM DISCIPLINARY
OFFICER, E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR BIHAR
5. SANGEETA MEENA, ENQUIRY OFFICER CUM DIVISIONAL
OPERATION MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR BIHAR
6. SUDARSHAN OJHA SON OF LATE HARINANDAN OJHA AT
PRESENT- OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT (COACHING), DEPARTMENT
OF OPERATING, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate
: Ms. Prerna Rishi, Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Shekhar, Advocate
: Mr. Ram Sandesh Roy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, A.S.G.
: Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Sr. Panel Counsel
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2026


Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of the present application, the order dated
03.04.2021 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate,
Sonpur, in connection with Hajipur R.P.F. Post Case No.03 of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14460 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
2/5
2020 has been challenged, whereby cognizance was taken for the
offences under Section 3 R.P (UP) Act.
3. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner is said
to have indulged in stealing of a cartridge from the printer of the
computer set installed in the Department of East Central Railway,
Hajipur.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the present case relates to the theft of a cartridge from the printer
of a computer set, which was installed in the office of the
Superintendent (Coaching), Department of Operating, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, i.e., the informant/opposite party no.2. It has
been submitted that while the opposite party no. 2 got knowledge
about the theft of the cartridge on 22.07.2020 itself, the present
F.I.R. came to be lodged on 30.07.2020, i.e., eight days after the
occurrence, for which no plausible explanation has been tendered.
It has been further submitted that as a matter of fact, the
petitioner had gone to fill up the form of P.F. Loan at the Operating
Department and it was at the request of the opposite party no.2
himself, that he had taken out the cartridge and handed over to him
in the presence of another person. However, false allegations of
stealing the cartridge were imputed to this petitioner, who was also
suspended from his service from 15.07.2020 to 06.05.2021 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14460 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
3/5
was subsequently also lodged in jail, whereafter his suspension
was revoked and he joined his service on 07.05.2021. The
attention of this Court has also been invited to the inquiry report
dated 27.10.2020/05.11.2020, whereby the authorities who
inquired into the allegations did not find any material against the
petitioner.
5. The main thrust of the argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that there has been no identification of
the said cartridge, as such, whether the said cartridge was actually
a Railway property or not, is itself not established. It has also not
been proved whether the recovered cartridge was the original one
or a refilled one. In such background, it has been submitted that
when the identification of the cartridge is itself doubtful, Section 3
of the R.P (UP) Act, under which cognizance has been taken,
would not be made out as against the petitioner, especially in the
backdrop of he being exonerated in the departmental inquiry
which is evident from Annexure-3. It has also been submitted that
the cognizance order is also in a typed format, which is a reflection
of the non-application of judicial mind.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite
party no.2 has opposed the present application for quashing and
has submitted by way of his counter affidavit that during inquiry a

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14460 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
4/5
CCTV footage reveals that it was the petitioner who had removed
a cartridge from the printer without any authority letter. As such, it
has been submitted that the cognizance order ought not to be
interfered with at the threshold stage.
7. I have heard the rival contentions made on behalf of
the contesting parties and have perused the documents which have
been placed on record. It is apparent from the record that the F.I.R.
has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay and it is
also a fact that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges in the
departmental inquiry. Further, the cartridge itself has never been
put to any identification process. As such, the very basic fact of the
same being a Railway property, itself does not appear to get
established. In such view of the fact, the offence under Section 3
of the R.P (UP) Act does not seems to be made out against the
petitioner.
8. Considering the fact that no offence against the
petitioner is made out on the face of the allegations and records,
this Court is of the considered view that Category (1) of the case
of the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 would get attracted in the
present case. Considering the same, continuance of any further
proceeding as against the petitioner, would only consume the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14460 of 2024 dt.13-10-2026
5/5
precious time of the Court and would also result in abuse of the
process of the Court.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
03.04.2021 passed by the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate,
Sonpur, in connection with Hajipur R.P.F. Post Case No.03 of
2020, as against the petitioner stands quashed.
10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Ayush/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 16.10.2026
Transmission Date 16.10.2026