Case Background
The matter arose from Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020, registered in Patna. The petitioner was earlier Secretary of the Patna Branch A.G. Housing Co‑operative Society Limited.
According to the record, members of the Managing Committee of this co‑operative society, including the President and Vice President, had resigned. Under sub‑section 4(b) of Section 41 of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act, 1935, this led to automatic dissolution of the Managing Committee.
Following this, the District Co‑operative Officer, Patna, constituted an ad hoc committee by Memo No. 1131 dated 15.05.2019. In this memo, a Co‑operative Extension Officer, Shri Shrish Chouhan, was appointed as Special Officer to look after the affairs of the society.
Despite this change, the petitioner is alleged to have continued to act as Secretary and perform departmental work in that capacity. The dispute in this criminal case centres around this conduct.
On 13.12.2019, the petitioner issued a letter bearing No. 19‑20/163. Later, the District Co‑operative Officer, Patna, wrote Letter No. 123 dated 10.01.2020, stating that the petitioner’s letter was not in accordance with Section 41(4)(b) of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act, 1935 because the society’s Managing Committee stood dissolved. This letter also led to a direction to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner.
On 16.01.2020, the informant, Satyendra Kumar Singh, wrote to the Officer In‑charge of Shastri Nagar Police Station for lodging an FIR against the petitioner, in compliance with Letter No. 123 dated 10.01.2020. The FIR was registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), relating to criminal breach of trust and cheating.
On 18.01.2020, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Co‑operative Officer. In this letter, he admitted that a fault had been committed, but said it was not deliberate. He also mentioned that he had been suffering from a serious disease like cancer for the last six years.
On this representation, the District Co‑operative Officer made a noting that the FIR could be withdrawn after issuance of a warning to the petitioner. However, as the judgment records, no further steps were taken to act on this noting.
The police completed investigation and submitted Charge‑sheet No. 758 of 2020 dated 31.12.2020. On 26.06.2021, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑IV, Patna, took cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in G.R. Case No. 637 of 2020 arising out of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020.
Later, the petitioner filed a discharge petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class‑V, Patna. On 04.09.2025, the Magistrate rejected the discharge petition.
Aggrieved by both the taking of cognizance and the rejection of discharge, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50360 of 2022 before the Patna High Court, seeking quashing of the cognizance order dated 26.06.2021 and the discharge rejection order dated 04.09.2025.
During the hearing, an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 01 of 2025) was filed to amend the prayer so that the petitioner could challenge both orders. The High Court allowed this interlocutory application and permitted the amendment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ansul, heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The core relief sought was to quash the order of cognizance dated 26.06.2021 and the order dated 04.09.2025 rejecting discharge, in connection with Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020 (G.R. Case No. 637 of 2020).
The Court noted that cognizance had been taken for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. These sections deal with criminal breach of trust and cheating, which generally require dishonest intention and wrongful loss or gain.
The prosecution case was that the petitioner continued to function as Secretary of the co‑operative society, even though the Managing Committee had automatically dissolved due to resignation of ten members, including the President and Vice President, as per Section 41(4)(b) of the Bihar Co‑operative Societies Act, 1935. An ad hoc committee had already been formed by Memo No. 1131 dated 15.05.2019, with a Special Officer appointed to manage the society.
Despite this, the petitioner allegedly issued Letter No. 19‑20/163 dated 13.12.2019 and performed functions as Secretary. The District Co‑operative Officer’s Letter No. 123 dated 10.01.2020 took the view that this letter was not in consonance with the legal position and directed that an FIR be lodged.
In support of quashing, the petitioner’s counsel relied on two key aspects: the petitioner’s representation dated 18.01.2020 and the statement of the District Co‑operative Officer recorded in the case diary.
First, the petitioner’s representation of 18.01.2020 showed that he admitted a fault but explained that it was not intentional. He also brought on record his serious illness for the last six years. On this representation, the District Co‑operative Officer recorded his opinion that the FIR could be withdrawn after issuing a warning to the petitioner.
The High Court noted that, despite this clear noting, no one took steps to withdraw or close the criminal case. Instead, the investigation continued and a charge‑sheet was filed on 31.12.2020, which led to the cognizance order of 26.06.2021.
Secondly, the police recorded the statement of the District Co‑operative Officer during investigation, which was reflected in paragraph 23 of the case diary. In this statement, the officer admitted that after issuing the letter, no loss had been occasioned by the petitioner’s act.
The High Court found it significant that the cognizance order dated 26.06.2021 itself referred to paragraph 23 of the case diary. However, the Magistrate did not seem to have taken the trouble of actually examining what was contained in that paragraph, even though it “almost exonerates the petitioner,” as observed in the judgment.
This failure was crucial because, if no loss was caused and the departmental authority itself felt that a warning would suffice, the basis for a criminal prosecution under Sections 406 and 420 IPC became very weak.
The petitioner’s counsel also cited three decisions:
(i) Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr., reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706.
(ii) Md. Naushand Khan and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online Pat 9587.
(iii) Rajnish Kumar Bishwakarma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5290 of 2024.
While the Patna High Court did not reproduce detailed extracts from these judgments, it referred to the legal principle that emerges from such decisions: for every wrong act, criminal prosecution is not the remedy. Many wrongs, especially in service or administrative matters, can and should be addressed through departmental proceedings rather than criminal courts.
The Court emphasised that departmental authorities are expected to deal with such lapses through proper internal processes, such as issuing warnings or initiating disciplinary proceedings. Instead, in this case, the Department took what the Court described as a “short‑cut method” of harassing the petitioner by filing a criminal case.
On the materials available, including the District Co‑operative Officer’s own statement that no loss was caused and his earlier noting recommending withdrawal of the FIR after warning, the High Court concluded that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue would amount to misuse of the criminal process.
In this background, the Court held that the order taking cognizance dated 26.06.2021, as well as the subsequent order dated 04.09.2025 rejecting the discharge petition, could not be sustained in law, at least so far as the petitioner was concerned.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed and set aside the cognizance order passed in Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020 (G.R. Case No. 637 of 2020) and also set aside the order dated 04.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application.
With these findings, the High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous petition. As a result, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in that case stand terminated at this stage.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment has practical importance for employees and office‑bearers of co‑operative societies and similar bodies in Bihar.
First, it shows that not every procedural or administrative mistake should be turned into a criminal case. Where an officer acts without proper authority but no financial loss or dishonest intention is shown, the proper remedy may be departmental action, not prosecution under cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Second, the decision reminds Magistrates that they must carefully read the entire case diary before taking cognizance. If material in the case diary points towards absence of loss or lack of criminal intent, that cannot be ignored.
Third, the judgment underlines that when departmental authorities themselves note that an FIR can be withdrawn after issuing a warning, continuing with criminal proceedings can be considered harassment. Courts can step in to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.
For individuals facing similar allegations arising out of internal society or departmental disputes, this case illustrates that the Patna High Court is willing to quash criminal cases where the basic ingredients of offences like Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not supported by the materials.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can a former co‑operative society secretary be prosecuted under Sections 406 and 420 IPC merely for continuing to act as Secretary after dissolution of the Managing Committee, when no loss is shown and the departmental officer himself suggests withdrawal of FIR with warning?
Answer: The Patna High Court held that in such circumstances, criminal prosecution is not the proper remedy. On the available materials, particularly the District Co‑operative Officer’s statement that no loss was caused and his noting recommending withdrawal of the FIR, continuation of prosecution amounted to harassment. The Court quashed the cognizance and discharge rejection orders as against the petitioner. - Issue: Was the Magistrate justified in taking cognizance despite material in the case diary that almost exonerated the petitioner?
Answer: The Court found that the Magistrate failed to properly consider paragraph 23 of the case diary, which recorded that no loss had been caused by the petitioner’s act. As the cognizance order strangely referred to that paragraph but did not deal with its contents, the order was held unsustainable and was quashed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr., (2019) 11 SCC 706.
- Md. Naushand Khan and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr., 2023 SCC Online Pat 9587.
- Rajnish Kumar Bishwakarma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5290 of 2024.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50360 of 2022; arising out of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 46 of 2020 (G.R. Case No. 637 of 2020)
Case Title: Rajendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ansul
Date of Judgment: 10.03.2026
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 2022
Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandit, Advocate; Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate
For the State/Opposite Party: Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh-I, Additional Public Prosecutor
Nature of the Case: Criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of cognizance order and order rejecting discharge petition in a case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
