Shashi Bhushan Verma vs State Of Bihar & Anr.

Date : 06-08-2026 Even after grant of several opportunities to learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, there is no representation on his behalf; however, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State is present.

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Patna by which cognizance came to be taken against the petitioner under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 487 of 2016.

As per the allegation, the complainant claims to be the owner of the plots of land in question. However, it has been alleged that officials of the Revenue Department, after accepting illegal gratification, recorded the name of Bihar Vidyapeeth in the revenue records. It has further been alleged that the Halka Karmchari and the Circle Officer submitted a false report in connection with an application filed by the petitioner, who is a retired Bihar Administrative Officer. The complainant has further alleged that the official accused persons, having been illegally gratified, abused their official positions and passed the mutation order in favour of Bihar Vidyapeeth.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court towards paragraph no. 11 of the complaint, wherein, the petitioner has been described to be a retired Bihar Administrative Service Officer who had filed the mutation case as a Secretary of the Society which has been registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has further been submitted that in view of such averment, no offence under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, as well as in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited Vs. Sub Judicial Magistrate reported (1998) 5 SCC 749 and has submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioner is attended with malicious intent. When the order passed in favour of the complainant by the Bihar Land Tribunal was not being enforced, the petitioner was nowhere connected with the official duty so as to redress the grievance of the complainant.

Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not a public servant within the definition of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, no cognizance ought to have been taken against the petitioner under Sections 166 and 167 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution against the petitioner appears to be vexatious and malicious in nature and the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, order taking cognizance dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patna, with respect to the petitioner only is hereby quashed.

Accordingly, the application stands allowed.