Superior Command is No Defence for Inherently Illegal Acts or Misappropriation of Assets

The petitioner, a police Constable, was part of a raiding party led by SDOP Pooja Pandey that intercepted a vehicle on 09.10.2025 carrying Rs. 2,96,50,000.

It is alleged that the raiding party, instead of following legal seizure procedures, misappropriated Rs. 1,45,00,000 after illegal negotiations with the occupants.

Investigation revealed the petitioner was in continuous telephonic contact with co-accused ASI Arpit Bhairam and had transmitted a photograph of the intercepted vehicle to the SDOP.

The petitioner filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking quashment of the FIR registered at P.S. Lakhanwara under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 140(3), 61(2), and 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), which grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

Supreme Court precedents, including Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and CBI v. Aryan Singh, which establish that at the quashing stage, the court should not conduct a "mini-trial" or a detailed appreciation of evidence, but only examine if the allegations disclose a prima facie offense.

The principle that "obedience to command" does not excuse a public servant from liability for acts that are ex-facie unlawful.

The Court rejected the State's preliminary objection that an alternative remedy (discharge) bars a quashing petition, noting that Section 528 BNSS can be invoked if the proceedings result in a miscarriage of justice.

On merits, the Court found that the petitioner’s act of photographing and transmitting the vehicle details to co-accused suggested active participation rather than being a mere spectator.

Regarding the defense of "superior orders," the Court reasoned that the rule of law is paramount; a subordinate is legally bound to refuse an order that is manifestly unlawful or contrary to statute.

Whether the petitioner acted bona fide is a triable question of fact.

In cases of criminal conspiracy and common design, the absence of physical recovery from a specific individual does not automatically exonerate them during the investigative stage.

The petition for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings was dismissed.

The Court clarified that these observations are limited to the maintainability of the quashing petition and shall not influence the Trial Court’s final adjudication on the merits.