High Court refuses to quash corruption proceedings where prima facie evidence of criminal conspiracy and misappropriation exists.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department, was accused of involvement in financial irregularities and substandard construction of the Hata-Swaspur-Musabani road. An initial report in 2006 alleged excess payments of ₹103.364 Lakhs and deviations from specifications

Consequently, an FIR was lodged in 2006 under Sections 409/120B of the IPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act (1988), and the Bihar Prevention of Specified Corrupt Practices Act (1983)

While a 2012 cognizance order was previously quashed for being non-speaking, the Special Judge (A.C.B.) passed a fresh order taking cognizance on 22.09.2020 and subsequently framed charges on 19.07.2024

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of these proceedings, arguing that a subsequent 2007 expert report by BIT Mesra exonerated the quality of work and that his role was merely supervisory

1. Whether prima facie materials existed before the Trial Court to justify taking cognizance and proceeding with the trial against the petitioner.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings based on the petitioner's defense of a conflicting expert report and lack of direct financial authority.

The court relied on the principles governing Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) as established in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, Amanullah v. State of Bihar, and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao.

These precedents establish that at the stage of cognizance, the court’s duty is limited to determining if an offence is prima facie made out, rather than evaluating the success rate of the prosecution.

The court must exercise quashing powers sparingly, only in the "rarest of rare cases," and the accused has no right to produce defense materials to overrule the prosecution's allegations at the charge-framing stage.

The Court observed that the Special Judge (A.C.B.) had duly considered the case diary, witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the investigation report which found that work was incomplete and of low quality.

Regarding the defense's reliance on the favorable 2007 BIT Mesra report, the Court noted the Trial Court’s reasoning that this second inspection occurred eleven months after the first, leaving a gap where defects could have been rectified; furthermore, the two teams inspected different stretches of the road.

The High Court found that the petitioner's signatures on the ‘Measurement Book’ (MB) sufficiently established prima facie involvement.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s claims—that he lacked financial authority or that the payment was merely an "advance"—are factual pleas that must be tested during trial through evidence, rather than in a quashing petition.

The Court dismissed Cr.M.P. No. 199 of 2025, refusing to interfere with the orders dated 22.09.2020 (cognizance) and 19.07.2024 (framing of charge). All interim orders staying the proceedings were vacated.