Allowed¶22

Amar Nath @ Rana Shankar Vakil @ Ram Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Jun 2026CR. MISC./40077/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court; Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40077 of 2022; Ansul J.; quashing of FIR and cognizance order dated 29.05.2014; Chief Judicial Magistrate Lakhisarai; Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012; G.R. No. 648/2012; Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC; Section 161 Cr.P.C.; election certificate; vote for Shail Devi; photostatic copy; mala fide FIR; village politics / political rivalry; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1999 Supp (1) SCC 335); inherent jurisdiction; abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012 / G.R. No. 648/2012 and all proceedings arising therefrom, including the cognizance order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, stand quashed. ¶22

Amar Nath @ Rana Shankar Vakil @ Ram Shankar Singh Vs The… — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the allegations in Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The allegations in the case, even if taken at face value, do not make out any offence at all.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings are a mala fide exercise arising out of a local dispute having nothing to do with the offences alleged — supported by the informant's own petition before the CJM disclosing political rivalry and the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements showing only a photostatic copy was taken and the case was lodged due to village politics — and their continuance cannot be countenanced.

¶19

Key takeaways

The present case squarely falls within the categories of cases enumerated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1999 Supp (1) SCC 335), on the strength of which the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ansul, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40077 of 2022, decided 23-06-2026 — Application allowed; Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012 / G.R. No. 648/2012 and all proceedings arising therefrom, including the cognizance order dated 29.05.2014 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai (cognizance under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC), stand quashed. The prosecution case was that petitioner Amar Nath @ Rana Shankar Vakil @ Ram Shankar Singh took the informant Manoj Kumar's ward-commissioner election certificate on the pretext that an affidavit was required, directed him to vote for Shail Devi and never returned it. The Court held that the allegations, even taken at face value, make out no offence; the informant's own petition before the CJM disclosed that the FIR stemmed from local political rivalry, and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the informant and his wife showed only a photostatic copy had been taken and the case was lodged solely due to village politics. Concluding the proceedings were a mala fide exercise over a local dispute, the Court found the case squarely within the categories in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1999 Supp (1) SCC 335, as cited herein) and quashed the FIR and cognizance order in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. NAFR.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40077 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2012 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai

¶3

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

¶4

AMAR NATH @ RANA SHANKAR VAKIL @ RAM SHANKAR SINGH Son of Late Siyaram Singh Resident of village- Barhiya, Ward No.- 3 P.S.Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

Manoj Kumar Son of Late Kameshwar Thakur Resident of village- Barhiya, Ward no. 3 (Nauwa Toli), P.S.- Barhiya, District- Lakhisarai

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Onkar Nath, Advocate For the State : Mr.Rajendra Singh, APP For the O.P.No.2: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advocate Mr.Aman Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Date : 23-06-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The petitioner has challenged the cognizance order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 648/2012, whereby cognizance was taken under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the informant, Manoj Kumar, was elected as Ward Commissioner in the 2012 election and had received an election certificate. The petitioner is

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40077 of 2022 dt.23-06-2026 2/3

¶17

said to have told the informant that an affidavit was required to be made for the election certificate. He took the certificate from him. He directed him to cast his vote in favour of Shail Devi. He never returned the certificate.

¶18

The counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court towards the fact that the informant himself filed a petition before the learned CJM, Lakhisarai, wherein he disclosed the real motive behind the FIR, which was to punish the petitioner on account of local political rivalry. In the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant and his wife stated that the petitioner had taken only a photostatic copy of the certificate, and that the case had been lodged solely due to village politics.

¶19

The case is peculiar, and the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out any offence at all. The allegation is that a certificate was taken and the informant was asked to vote for a particular person. It later turned out that the certificate was only a photostatic copy. Moreover, the informant himself gave up his version in his petition before the learned CJM. Taking all this into consideration, this appears to be a mala fide exercise arising out of a local dispute, which has nothing to do with the offences alleged, and the continuance of proceedings cannot be countenanced. The present case squarely falls within the categories of cases

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40077 of 2022 dt.23-06-2026 3/3

¶21

enumerated by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1999 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein it has been held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if 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, and where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court may quash the same in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

¶22

Resultantly, this application is allowed. Barhiya P.S. Case No. 60/2012 / G.R. No. 648/2012, and all proceedings arising therefrom, including the cognizance order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, stand quashed.

¶23

(Ansul, J)

¶24

abhishekkr/-

¶25

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	24.06.2026
Transmission Date	24.06.2026

Amar Nath @ Rana Shankar Vakil @ Ram Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Nath @ Rana Shankar Vakil @ Ram Shankar Singh 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

Qumrul Hoda @ Quamrul Hoda Vs The State of Bihar

Kundan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rupa Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Rekha Mishra Vs The State of Bihar

Sandeep Kumar Gupta @ Sandeep Prasad @ Sandeep Prasad Sao Vs the State of Bihar

Gopesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar