Mahesh Kumar Ranjan @ Maheshwar Paswan vs The State Of Bihar, Through Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna and Anr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56294 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2007 Thana- MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE
District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Mahesh Kumar Ranjan @ Maheshwar Paswan S/o Late Thakur Paswan, R/o
Kolhua Pagumberpur New Bus Stand Golamber Chowk Durga Asthan, P.S.-
Ahiyapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna
and Anr
2. The Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, I.O. Inc. Vigilance
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-09-2026
Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Anil Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department.
2. The petitioner has challenged an application for
quashing the order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned Special
Vigilance Court, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.
89 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the learned court below was
rejected the complaint petition.
3. The complainant had filed a complaint case before the
learned Special Judge Vigilance, Muzaffarpur against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56294 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
2/4
petitioner and proposed accused persons, as made in the
complaint, the allegation was with respect to accumulation of
wealth disproportionately to his known source of income.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the learned Special Judge has sent the aforesaid petition to the
vigilance authorities to inquire into the matter and further to
register an FIR, but the same has not been registered, the petitioner
had put forth materials in support of his allegation, but the learned
Special Judge has not considered the facts in the entirety and in
absence of want of sanction the complaint of the petitioner has
been dismissed.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that once the Court has sent the complaint for
registration of the FIR, there was no option left to the Investigating
Agency except to register the same as an FIR and to investigate the
matter further. It has further been submitted that the sanction could
have been obtained at any stage and the FIR should have, at least,
been registered.
5. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has
submitted that the impugned order is good in law and facts and
does not require interference. Learned counsel for the Vigilance
Department has referred to Chapter-5 of the Prevention of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56294 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
3/4
Corruption Act, 1988 and has further referred to Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, wherein the previous sanction
necessary for prosecution has been dealt with.
5.1. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has
further submitted that under Section 19(1) of the said Act, it has
been provided that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under Sections, 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention and
Corruption Act, which is alleged to have been committed by a
public servant except with the previous sanction. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner has never approached the
Competent Authority for grant of sanction. It has further been
submitted, referring to the proviso to Section 19(1)(ii) that in case
of request from a person other than a police officer or an officer of
investigating agency, but the same in the case of the petitioner, the
appropriate government or competent authority shall not accord
sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an
opportunity being heard with the concerned public servant.
5.2. Learned counsel for the Vigilance Department has
further submitted, referring to the order dated 28.11.2017, that the
previous direction of the Court to register FIR was withdrawn and
it has been specifically stated that if the FIR has not been
registered, the same would have been returned.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56294 of 2018 dt.01-09-2026
4/4
6. Heard the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances,
including the statutory bar under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the present application is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
8. The record of the court below be sent immediately.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Shivam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 03.09.2026
Transmission Date 03.09.2026