Md. Khalid Kabir @ Md. Khalid v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Jul 2025CR. MISC./54154/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing of cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 by JM Railway Barauni in Complaint Case No.10 of 2014; IPC Sections 147/341/323/379/302; protest petition after police final form No.22 of 2014 exoneration in Begusarai Rail P.S. Case No.06 of 2014; death by train accident per postmortem; EW-1/EW-2 court questions; Mukhiya-election enmity and mala fide/ulterior-motive implication; Pepsi Foods Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 749; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Patna High Court; Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.; application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing/setting aside of the cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Barauni in Complaint Case No.10 of 2014 qua all five petitioners; office directed to communicate the judgment to the trial court forthwith. ¶128

Md. Khalid Kabir @ Md. Khalid Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶128

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Barauni in Complaint Case No.10 of 2014, taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379 and 302 IPC, is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The impugned cognizance order does not appear to be a reasoned order covering the materials available on record; cognizance for a heinous offence like murder was taken in a very mechanical manner in routine style, making the impugned cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 questionable on its face.

¶125

Ratio / Principle

The postmortem report and the statement of witnesses prima facie suggest that death was caused due to a train accident; in the background of the admitted previous enmity, false implication out of oblique and ulterior motive cannot be denied.

¶124

Key takeaways

Taking a guiding note of Pepsi Foods Ltd. (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), the impugned order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Barauni in Complaint Case No.10 of 2014 qua all above-named petitioners is quashed/set aside.ratio¶127

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.), CAV judgment dated 17-07-2025 in CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023: Application under Section 482 CrPC by five accused to quash the cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 of the Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Barauni in Complaint Case No.10 of 2014 (arising from a protest petition filed after police had exonerated the accused in Begusarai Rail P.S. Case No.06 of 2014, final form No.22 of 2014 dated 31.08.2014 having been accepted by the Railway Magistrate), whereby cognizance was taken for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379 and 302 IPC on the allegation that on 14.04.2014 the petitioners snatched the purse of the complainant's wife in a train and pushed his son Nazisu Zama from the running train, resulting in his death. Relying on the postmortem report attributing death to injuries 'caused by Hard, heavy moving & blunt substance corresponding to train accident', the court-question answers of EW-1 and EW-2 indicating the deceased fell from the train, and the admitted enmity stemming from the Mukhiya election, the Court held that the death prima facie occurred due to a train accident, that false implication out of oblique and ulterior motive in the background of previous enmity cannot be denied, and that the cognizance order was mechanical and unreasoned, ignoring the materials on record. Taking a guiding note of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Court quashed/set aside the cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 qua all the petitioners and allowed the application.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54154 of 2023

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2014 Thana- BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE District- Begusarai

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Md. Khalid Kabir @ Md. Khalid, Son of Late Kabir Uddin

¶5

Abul Hasnat @ Hasannat, Son of Abul Barkat,

¶6

Taran @ Md. Saleh, Son of Md. Kashim

¶7

Taw @ Taj Haidar Son of Obaidur Rahman

¶8

Shah Fahim Ahmad @ Shabab, Son of Sayad Shah Shamim Ahmad All are resident of Village-Lakhminiya Pachim Tola, Ward No. 16, P.S.- Balia, DistBegusarai

¶9

... ... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Bihar

¶12

Samsadujjama, Son of Late Md. Idrish, Resident of Village-Lakhminiya P.S.- Balia, Dist- Begusarai

¶13

... ... Opposite Parties

¶14

======================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioners	:	Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Senior Advocate
		Mr. Vipin Kumar Singh, Advocate
		Ms. Nikita Mittal, Advocate
		Mr. Kumar Awnish Ankit, Advocate
For the State	:	Md. Fahimuddin, APP
For the O.P. No.2	:	Mr. Ansul, Senior Advocate
		Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate

¶16

======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 17-07-2025

¶18

Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior

¶19

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Md. Fahimuddin, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ansul, learned

¶20

senior counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2/complainant.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 2/20

¶22

The present application has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Barauni in connection with Complaint Case No.10 of 2014, where the learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘CrPC’).

¶23

First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) speaks in brief about the case of prosecution based upon information

¶24

supplied by the informant/complainant, namely, Samsadujjama, son of Late Md. Idrish, resident of villageLakhminiya, P.S.- Balia, Distt.- Begusarai that on14.04.2014 at 10.00 hours, while he was going to Begusarai for eye check up along with his son Nazisu Zama (deceased), Naseer Zama and wife Kashma Khatoon, when they boarded the train at Lakminyan Railway Station, all the above-named petitioners along with 2-3 unknown persons, who are also resident of Lakminyan, P.S.-Baliya, District-Begusarai snatched the

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 3/20

¶26

purse of his wife. When his son Nazisu Zama made an attempt to catch the snatcher, all the above-named petitioners pushed him from train, out of which, his son suffered severe injuries. The informant somehow managed to get the train stopped and picked up his injured son and brought him to Dr. S. Pandit at Begusarai for treatment, who referred him to another hospital from where, his injured son was brought to Dr. Nalini Ranjan, who also referred his injured son to Sadar Hospital, Begusarai, where he succumbed to injuries.

¶27

With the aforesaid information, initially Begusarai Rail P.S. Case No.06 of 2014 was lodged. After investigation, the accused/petitioners were exonerated from the allegation, and final form bearing No.22 of 2014 dated 31.08.2014 was submitted by the police. The aforesaid final form was accepted by the learned Railway Magistrate also.

¶28

The informant preferred a protest petition no.10 C of 2015 on 17.05.2014 after a lapse of one month of occurrence, where, considering the statement of the complainant and enquiry witnesses on oath, the learned

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 4/20

¶30

Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379 and 302 of the IPC against the petitioners.

¶31

It is submitted by Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners that almost the same allegation/statement was made by the informant, who is the complainant and also by inquiry witnesses, who recorded their statement under Section 161 of CrPC during the course of investigation also. It is submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased categorically stated that he died out of accident. It is submitted that the petitioners and informant/complainant were known to each other, having

¶32

previous enmity, and when the son of the informant/complainant died in a rail accident, out of a malicious approach to settle the score qua previous enmity, the present false case was lodged. It is submitted that the protest petition was filed after a lapse of one month from the date of lodging of the FIR in a premeditated and wellconceived manner. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that the complainant categorically stated on court question that he

¶33

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 5/20

¶34

never saw the postmortem report. He also admitted to the inimical term with petitioners/accused persons due to the “Mukhiya” election. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that the postmortem report was available on record, which categorically suggest that the injury received by the deceased son of the informant was due to a train accident, but this document of unimpeaching nature was completely ignored by learned Magistrate before taking cognizance against the petitioners.

¶35

Mr. Singh further pointed out that the statement of Enquiry Witness No.1, namely, Naseer Hussain and Enquiry Witness No.2, namely, Kashma Khatoon were completely ignored before taking cognizance in such a heinous matter, particularly, when police authority after in depth investigation, exonerated the petitioners from the allegation.

¶36

In support of his submission, Mr. Singh relied upon the court question of EW-1 and EW-2, where they categorically stated that the deceased fell from the train. It is pointed out that the postmortem report was obtained by EW-

¶37

1 (son of the complainant), but this fact was completely

¶38

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 6/20

¶39

ignored by the complainant and the same was not brought on record intentionally, and if it was so, perhaps the cognizance would not had been taken against the petitioners for the alleged offences.

¶40

In view of the aforesaid factual submissions, while concluding the argument, it is submitted by Mr. Singh that the implication of the petitioners is, admittedly, a consequence of village level political rivalry stemming from the election of the Mukhiya. It is further submitted that the informant/complainant, taking undue advantage of the accidental death of his son, has falsely implicated the petitioners in grave offences, including that of murder, despite their innocence. It is pointed out that it is a purely accidental case, and, therefore, no cognizable offences as alleged were made out against petitioners; hence, impugned cognizance order is liable to be quashed and set aside by taking a guiding note of the legal report as available through

¶41

State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] .

¶42

On the other hand, Mr. Ansul, learned senior

¶43

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 7/20

¶44

counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/complainant/O.P. No.2 submitted that the allegation is in clear terms that the petitioners/accused pushed the deceased son of complainant out of the running train. It is submitted that the allegation of pushing from running train prima facie constitute the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and, therefore, the order of cognizance is not bad in the eyes of law. It is also submitted that the submissions as advanced on behalf of the petitioners is like defence version, which can be looked into only during the trial. However, he could not disputed the postmortem report and court questions as asked from the complainant and inquiry witnesses.

¶45

It would be apposite to reproduce the

¶46

fardbeyan of the informant dated 14.04.2015 recorded Mr. Ranjeet Ranjan, Sub-Inspector of Town Police Station, Begusarai at Sadar Hospital Begusarai, which is as under:-

¶47

“esjk uke lelknq tekW mez djhc 62 o’kZ firk eks0 bnfjl lk0&y[kfefu;kW Fkkuk&cfy;k] ftyk&csxqljk; dk LFkk;h fuoklh gwWA vkt fnuakad 14@4@14 dks le; 22-30 cts vkt uxj Fkkuk ds iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds le{k lnj vLirky csxwljk; esa LosPNk ls viuk C;ku nsrk gWw fd vkt fnukad 14@4@14 dks djhc 10-00 ¼nl½ cts lqcg vius yM+dk ¼e`rd½ ukftlq tek] ukflj tek ,oa iRuh dk”kekW [kkrqu ds lkFk

¶48

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 8/20

¶49

MkWDVj ls vkW[k fn[kkus ds fy, ?kj ls csxqljk; ds fy, fudysA ge lHkh O;fDRk Vªsu idM+us ds fy, y[kfefu;kW LVs”ku vk,A vkSj y[kfefu;kW LVs”ku ij ge lHkh yksx Vªsu ij p<+dj cSB x,A T;ksagh Vªsu y[kfefu;kW LVs”ku ls [kqyh rks 1- eks0 [kkyhn is- eks- dchj 2- glukr is- vcqy cjdku] 3- “kckc is- “kyhe] 4- rju is- dklhe] 5- rkm is0 vksoSn ,oa nks&rhu vU; vKkr lHkh lk-& y[kfefu;kW Fkkuk&cfy;k] ftyk&cxqljk; us esjs gh ckWxh esa ?kql x,A ?kqlus ds ckn esjh iRuh dk ilZ ysdj eks- [kkfyn Hkkxus yxk rks erd ukftlq tek idM+us dk dksf”k”k fd;k rks mDr lHkh yksx /kDdk nsdj Vªsu ls fxjk fn;kA fxjus ds ckn esjk yM+dk cqjh rjg t[eh gks x;kA rks geyksx fdlh rjg Vªsu dks :dok,A vkSj t[eh yM+dk dks bZykt djkus gsrq p<+k fy,A vkSj csxqljk; Mk- ,l- iafMr ds ;gkW vk,A tgkW ij bykt gqvkA ftlds ckn csgrj bZykt gsrq jsQj dj fn;k x;kA rc Mk- ufyuh jatu ds ;gkW yk,A og Hkh jsQj dj fn,A rc lnj vLirky csxqljk; yk,A blh nkSjku esjs yM+dk dk eR;q gks x;kA lnj vLirky esa MkDVj ds ns[kus ds i”pkr e`r ?kksf’kr dj fn,A ?kVuk dk dkj.k vkilh nq”euh gSA

¶50

;gh esjk c;ku gS eSa viuk c;ku i<+ o i<+okdj lqu o le> fy;kA lgh fy[kk ikdj viuk gLrk{kj cuk fn;kA

¶51

In view of the aforesaid arguments and factual

¶52

aspect, it would also be apposite to reproduce the postmortem

¶53

report of the deceased and the court questions asked to the complainant and to the enquiry witnesses, which are as

¶54

under:-

¶55

Postmortem Report of the deceased:

¶56

“External: (1) Abrasion of size 4” x 3/4” over left waist.

¶57

(2) Abrasion of size 2” x 3/4” over left ilice fossa.

¶58

(3) Lacerated wound of size 1” x 1/2”x semi deep over

¶59

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 9/20

¶60

chin.

¶61

Time elapsed since death- within 12-24 hours.

¶62

Caused of death- Death was due to massive haemorrhage leads to haemorhage shock (shock) produced by above-mentioned injuries caused by Hard, heavy moving & blunt substance corresponding to train accident.”

¶63

The court questions asked to the complainant:

¶64

1- iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ dks eSusa ugha ns[kk gSA

¶65

2- esjh okbZQ ,d ckj eqf[k;k dk bysD”ku btgk:y gd dh rjQ fd f[kykQ yM+h Fkh ftl dkj.k vfHk;qDrksa rFkk geyksxksa ds chp nq”euh gks xbZA

¶66

3- esjh okbZQ dh vkW[k esa nnZ Fkk mlh dks fn[kkus gsrq geyksx MkWDVj ds ikl tk jgs FksA

¶67

The court questions asked to E.W.-1:-

¶68

1- tc xkM+h ls fxjus ds ckn Vªsu esa yM+ds dks cSBk;k Fkk rc og csgks”k FkkA

¶69

2- vEeh bysD”ku eas [kM+h gqbZ Fkh blhfy, muyksxksa ls nq”euh gks xbZ FkhA

¶70

3- iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ esa eSusa flXuspj fd;k FkkA iqfyl dh iwNrkN esa Hkh eSusa ;gh c;ku fd;k FkkA The court questions asked to EW-2:-

¶71

1- lHkh vfHk;qDr xkWo esa gh jgrs gSaA mudk viuk dkjksckj gSA

¶72

2- eSa cpkus xbZ Fkh vius yM+ds dks ysfdu /kDdk eq>s ns fn;k x;k FkkA

¶73

3- MkWDVj lkgc us lnj gkWLihVy ds crk;k Fkk fd Vªsu ls fxjus dh otg ls pksV ls gh e`R;q gqbZ gSA”

¶74

It is an admitted position that for the

¶75

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 10/20

¶76

occurrence, initially, the FIR was lodged by the complainant, which was registered as Begusarai Rail P.S. Case No.06 of 2014, which, after thorough investigation by the police, exonerated the accused/petitioners and, thereafter, the final form was submitted on 31.08.2014 by the police. It also appears that treating protest as complaint case, cognizance was taken against petitioners.

¶77

The allegation is of implication in serious offence like murder and, therefore, a close and strict scrutiny is required in aforesaid factual background.

¶78

From perusal of the postmortem report, it

¶79

appears that the deceased son of the complainant died in a train accident. Admittedly, the postmortem report was available with the complainant, as his other son, who was examined as EW-1, received the postmortem report but, the same was not produced before the court during inquiry. EW-2 said that she was pushed by petitioners during the occurrence. It also appears that EW-2 categorically stated that she was told by the doctor at Sadar Hospital that the death was caused by falling from the train.

¶80

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 11/20

¶81

It would be apposite to reproduce the impugned

¶82

cognizance order dated 06.08.2022, which is as under:-

¶83

“IN THE COURT OF J.M. RAILWAY, BARAUNI

¶84

Complaint case no.10 of 2014

¶85

06-08-2022 Today record is put for cognizance cum summoning order. Attendance of complainant is filed.

¶86

This is complaint case filed by Shamshaduzzaman against Md. Khalid, Hasannat, Shabab, Taran and Taw. The case of the complainant in brief is that on dated 14.04.2014 at 10:00 AM he along with his family, sons Najusu Janna, Nasir Janna and wife Kashama Khatoon took train from Lakhaminia Station to going at Begusarai. When train was just start to ran all accused persons along with 2-3 unknown persons came to his compartment and one Md. Khalid snatched his wife’s purse, his son Najisu Janna tried to protect they push him out from train. Due to which later on his son died. The offence committed due to old enemity.

¶87

In support of her case complainant produced two enquiry witnesses namely, (I) Nasin Hussain, (ii) Kashma Khatoon.

¶88

Perused the record present before this court, S.A. deposition of enquiry witnesses and other material available on record this court find that there is sufficient grounds to make a prima facie case. Thus, at this stage it appears that a

¶89

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 12/20

¶90

prima facie case is made out u/ss. 147, 341, 323, 379 and 302 of IPC. Hence, cognizance is hereby taken of the offences punishable only u/s. 147, 341, 323, 379 and 302 of IPC against the accused person namely (1) Md. Khalid, (2) Hasannat, (3) Shabab, (4) Taran and (5) Taw.

¶91

Complainant is directed to file requisites within 15 days and thereafter office is directed to issue Summon on the above named accused person. Record is put on dated 25.08.2022 for appearance.

¶92

R.J.M., Bagrauni”

¶93

It would be apposite to reproduce the legal

¶94

report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. since reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, which is as under:-

¶95

“28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support

¶96

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 13/20

¶97

thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.

¶98

29. No doubt the Magistrate can discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless, but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against him when the complaint does not make out any case against him and still he must undergo the agony of a criminal trial. It was submitted before us on behalf of the State that in case we find that the High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction the matter should be remanded back to it to consider if the complaint and the evidence on record did not make out any case against the appellants. If, however, we refer to the impugned judgment of the High Court it has come to the conclusion, though without referring to any material on record, that “in the present case it cannot be said at this stage that the allegations in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

¶99

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 14/20

¶100

prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there exists no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused”. We do not think that the High Court was correct in coming to such a conclusion and in coming to that it has also foreclosed the matter for the Magistrate as well, as the Magistrate will not give any different conclusion on an application filed under Section 245 of the Code. The High Court says that the appellants could very well appear before the court and move an application under Section 245(2) of the Code and that the Magistrate could discharge them if he found the charge to be groundless and at the same time it has itself returned the finding that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellants. If we now refer to the facts of the case before us it is clear to us that not only that allegation against the appellants do not make out any case for an offence under Section 7 of the Act and also that there is no basis for the complainant to make such allegations. The allegations in the complaint merely show that the appellants have given their brand name to “Residency Foods and Beverages Ltd.” for bottling the beverage “Lehar Pepsi”. The complaint does not show what is the role of the appellants in the manufacture of the beverage which is said to be adulterated. The only allegation is that the appellants are the manufacturers of bottle. There is no averment as to how the complainant could say so and also if the appellants manufactured the alleged bottle or its contents. His sole information is from A.K. Jain who is impleaded as Accused 3. The preliminary evidence on which the first respondent relied in issuing summons

¶101

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 15/20

¶102

to the appellants also does not show as to how it could be said that the appellants are manufacturers of either the bottle or the beverage or both. There is another aspect of the matter. The Central Government in the exercise of their powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 made the Fruit Products Order, 1955 (for short “the Fruit Order”). It is not disputed that the beverage in question is a “fruit product” within the meaning of clause (2)(b) of the Fruit Order and that for the manufacture thereof certain licence is required. The Fruit Order defines the manufacturer and also sets out as to what the manufacturer is required to do in regard to the packaging, marking and labelling of containers of fruit products. One of such requirements is that when a bottle is used in packing any fruit products, it shall be so sealed that it cannot be opened without destroying the licence number and the special identification mark of the manufacturer to be displayed on the top or neck of the bottle. The licence number of the manufacturer shall also be exhibited prominently on the side label on such bottle [clause (8)(1)(b)]. Admittedly, the name of the first appellant is not mentioned as a manufacturer on the top cap of the bottle. It is not necessary to refer in detail to other requirements of the Fruit Order and the consequences of infringement of the Order and to the penalty to which the manufacturer would be exposed under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. We may, however, note that in Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. Union of India [AIR 1965 SC 1167 : (1965) 2 SCR 192] an

¶103

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 16/20

¶104

argument was raised that the Fruit Order was invalid because its provision indicated that it was an Order which could have been appropriately issued under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. This Court negatived this plea and said that the Fruit Order was validly issued under the Essential Commodities Act. What we find in the present case is that there was nothing on record to show if the appellants held the licence for the manufacture of the offending beverage and if, as noted above, the first appellant was the manufacturer thereof.

¶105

30. It is no comfortable thought for the appellants to be told that they could appear before the court which is at a far off place in Ghazipur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seek their release on bail and then to either move an application under Section 245(2) of the Code or to face trial when the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded makes out no case against them. It is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of the law and the courts and the High Court should not have shied away in exercising their jurisdiction. Provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. In our view the High Court should not have adopted such a rigid approach which certainly has led to miscarriage of justice in the case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the High Court should have exercised it.”

¶106

It would also be apposite to reproduce para-

¶107

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 17/20

¶108

102 of the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as

¶109

available through Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), which is as

¶110

under:-

¶111

“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.

¶112

(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.

¶113

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying

¶114

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 18/20

¶115

an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶116

(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 any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶117

(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.

¶118

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶119

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

¶120

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 19/20

¶121

continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶122

(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.”

¶123

In view of the aforesaid factual and legal

¶124

aspects and further by taking note of the postmortem report and the statement of witnesses, which prima facie suggest that death was caused due to a train accident in the background of the admitted previous enmity, false implication out of oblique and ulterior motive cannot be denied. The cognizance order as discussed aforesaid also

¶125

does not appear to be a reasoned order covering the aforesaid materials available on record, and in a very mechanical manner in routine style, the cognizance was taken for a heinous offence like murder, which makes the impugned cognizance order dated 06.08.2022 questionable

¶126

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54154 of 2023 dt.17-07-2025 20/20

¶127

on its face, and, therefore, by taking a guiding note of Pepsi Foods Ltd. case (supra) and Bhajan Lal’s case (supra), the impugned order dated 06.08.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Barauni in connection with Complaint Case No.10 of 2014 qua all above-named petitioners is hereby quashed/set aside.

¶128

The application stands allowed.

¶129

Office is directed to communicate the judgment

¶130

to the learned trial court forthwith.

¶131

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

¶132

Sanjeet/-

¶133

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	03-07-2025
Uploading Date	17-07-2025
Transmission Date	17-07-2025

Md. Khalid Kabir @ Md. Khalid v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Khalid Kabir @ Md. Khalid v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shekhar Suman Vs The State of Bihar

Murari Thakur @ Murari Kumar Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Rajeev Nayan Kumar Singh Vs the Director Department of Vigilance Bihar Patna

Madhu Kumari @ Dabli Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Nagina Yadav Vs The State of Bihar