Patna HC Orders FIR Against Former SHO Who Allegedly Broke Both Legs of a Man Over Caste Identity

Rejecting the police's rain-slip defence and finding a prima facie cognizable offence, Justice Jitendra Kumar directed registration of FIR against the then SHO, Murar, Buxar, and handed the investigation to the CID.

The High Court of Judicature at Patna has directed the Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, to register an FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, the then Officer-in-Charge of Murar Police Station, Buxar, for allegedly assaulting Manish Kumar — a resident of village Gangahar, Bhojpur — and breaking both his legs on account of his caste. Justice Jitendra Kumar, sitting singly, allowed the criminal writ petition on 16 June 2026, finding that the X-Ray report annexed to the petition made the police's explanation implausible and that the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution had been prima facie violated. The Director General of Police, Bihar, was simultaneously directed to entrust the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department and to send a compliance report to the Registrar General of the Court within thirty days.

What the Petitioner Alleged

Manish Kumar, son of Shiv Shankar Yadav, filed Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2515 of 2024 before the Patna High Court after his written complaints to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, the Superintendent of Police, and the District Magistrate produced no FIR.

According to the written report submitted by the petitioner, on 4 July 2024 at around 2:00 PM, he had gone to the stall of a friend in village Chaugaya for the online uploading of title documents relating to his land. When he stepped away to answer the call of nature, a vehicle from Murar Police Station arrived. The Station House Officer and constables were in the vehicle. The SHO called him over, enquired about his identity, and upon learning his caste, began abusing him in filthy language and assaulting him with a danda, breaking both his legs.

The petitioner annexed his X-Ray report to the writ petition. The fractures were visible in the report. Despite this, no FIR was registered against the accused officer.

The Police's Defence and Why the Court Rejected It

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Buxar. The affidavit admitted that both legs of the petitioner were broken. The explanation offered was that the petitioner had slipped on account of rainy weather, causing the fractures — and that the police had not beaten him.

Justice Jitendra Kumar found this explanation unpersuasive. The X-Ray report, showing the nature and extent of the fractures, did not support the rain-slip account. The Court also observed that a poor man who does not even gather the courage to lodge an FIR against a fellow citizen would be unlikely to file a false report against a police officer. The admission of the broken legs, combined with the medical evidence, left the police's version without credibility at the prima facie stage.

The Court was clear that at the stage of directing registration of an FIR, it was not required to assess the veracity of the allegations in detail. The question was only whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed a cognizable offence. The Court held they plainly did.

No Sanction Required for Prosecution

Justice Jitendra Kumar addressed a procedural point that often shields police officers from prosecution: the requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The Court held that no such sanction was required in this case. The alleged act — assaulting a man and breaking his legs on the basis of his caste — was not part of the official duty of a police officer. An act that falls entirely outside the scope of official duty does not attract the sanction requirement, and the accused could not seek shelter behind that provision.

Referral to Magistrate Would Be Further Injustice

The Court also considered whether the petitioner ought to be directed to approach the Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which is the ordinary route for compelling registration of an FIR when police refuse to act.

Justice Jitendra Kumar declined to take that route. The Court reasoned that referring the petitioner to the Magistrate at this stage would be a further injustice. The allegations disclosed a clear violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the writ court's intervention was warranted directly. Sending the petitioner through another layer of proceedings when his complaints had already been ignored by the SHO, the Superintendent of Police, and the District Magistrate would compound the wrong.

The Court observed that if such conduct by a police officer went unchecked, people would lose faith not only in the police but in the writ court itself.

Failure of the Supervisory Chain

Justice Jitendra Kumar expressed concern about the conduct of the senior officers to whom the petitioner had complained. The Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate had both received the petitioner's written report. Neither took action to ensure registration of an FIR or prosecution of the accused officer.

The Court described this as shocking and disturbing. It reiterated that the duty to prosecute an accused does not disappear because the accused happens to be a police officer. The Court invoked the constitutional principle that the law is above all, regardless of how high a person may be, and that every person — however poor — is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of law.

CID Investigation and Liberty to Seek CBI

Because the case involved an allegation against a serving police officer, Justice Jitendra Kumar directed that the investigation be entrusted to the Crime Investigation Department rather than left with the local police. The Director General of Police, Bihar, was directed to take a compliance report from the SHO, Murar, Buxar, regarding the lodging of the FIR and to ensure the CID takes over the investigation.

The Court went further and preserved the petitioner's right to seek CBI investigation if he remained unsatisfied with the CID's conduct of the case. A further writ petition for appointment of the CBI would be maintainable, the Court said, because the matter concerned the protection of fundamental rights and police brutality. The Court added that if such conduct were not controlled and checked, constitutional protections of life and liberty would be rendered meaningless.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The directions issued by Justice Jitendra Kumar on 16 June 2026 are as follows:

• The Station House Officer, Murar, Buxar, is directed to lodge an FIR against Kamal Nayan Pandey, the then Officer-in-Charge of Murar Police Station, Buxar.
• The Director General of Police, Bihar, is directed to take a compliance report from the SHO, Murar, Buxar, regarding the lodging of the FIR and to entrust the investigation to the Crime Investigation Department.
• The DGP, Bihar, is directed to send a compliance report to the Registrar General of the Patna High Court within thirty days, to be placed on record.
• If the petitioner is not satisfied with the CID investigation, he is at liberty to file a further writ petition before the High Court seeking appointment of the CBI to investigate the matter.