Patna High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Politician Over Alleged Assault on Police Team

Justice Arun Kumar Jha dismissed a writ plea to quash an FIR alleging a mob assaulted police investigating a false firearm licence report, applying the Bhajan Lal guidelines.

The Patna High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Kesariya Police Station against a politician accused of instigating a mob to assault a police team. Justice Arun Kumar Jha, sitting singly, rejected the plea filed by Naj Ahmad Khan @ Pappu Khan, holding that the contents of the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the petitioner's claim of mala fide prosecution was not sustainable given his history of 23 prior criminal cases. The petitioner is the husband of the Prakhand Pramukh of Kesariya Prakhand and had also contested Assembly elections, securing third position. The order was passed on 19 June 2026 in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.851 of 2026, arising out of Kesariya P.S. Case No.127 of 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner sought a writ quashing the FIR registered as Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127/2026 dated 21 March 2026, to the extent it named him, under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 132, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He also sought a direction restraining coercive steps against him and protection of his constitutional rights.

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, told the court that Case No. 127 of 2026 arose out of an earlier case, Kesariya P.S. Case No. 126 of 2026, which had itself been registered against the petitioner and coaccused persons after a police report submitted on his application for a second firearm licence falsely stated he had no criminal antecedents. It later emerged that the petitioner had 23 criminal cases against him. The petitioner argued he had no role in the submission of that false report and that, if anything, the authorities themselves may have submitted it.

The FIR under challenge, Case No. 127 of 2026, alleged that when police went to investigate Case No. 126 of 2026, the petitioner and coaccused persons threatened and assaulted the police party. Counsel submitted this allegation was itself not believable, since there was no reason for police investigating Case No. 126 to visit the petitioner's house, given he had no role in that case. He contended the petitioner was being dragged into successive cases due to political rivalry and that the FIR was mala fide.

Appearing for the State, counsel countered that the petitioner was a habitual offender with a long criminal history across 23 cases, and that some of his coaccused in Case No. 126 of 2026 also carried antecedents ranging from one to five cases each. The State submitted that investigation was still in progress and evidence being collected, and that when police went to arrest the petitioner in connection with Case No. 126, the police team was assaulted, making out offences under the cited BNS provisions. The State argued the petitioner, having sought the firearm licence himself, was the ultimate beneficiary of any false report on his antecedents, undercutting his mala fide claim.

The Question of Mala Fide Prosecution Under Article 226

The petition invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash a criminal FIR, a power the Supreme Court has held must be exercised sparingly and only in categories of cases where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. The core issue before Justice Jha was whether the FIR in Case No. 127 of 2026 fell within any such recognised category, particularly the ground of manifest mala fide urged by the petitioner.

The petitioner's case rested substantially on inference: that because the false antecedent report in Case No. 126 could not have been engineered by him, the subsequent assault case against him in Case No. 127 must also be a product of political vendetta. The bench had to weigh whether this chain of inference displaced the FIR's own factual narrative, which alleged a specific and violent incident.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Jha noted that Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026 alleged that when the police party reached the petitioner's house while investigating Case No. 126 of 2026, the petitioner and coaccused persons became violent, a mob assembled on the petitioner's call, and at his instigation the mob assaulted the police party with lathi, phatha and iron rod, causing injuries. The petitioner could not be arrested, and video and photographs of the incident had been taken. The court held these contents “clearly show commission of cognizable offences.”

On the mala fide argument, the court reasoned that Case No. 126 of 2026 had been registered while verifying facts about a false report submitted in the petitioner's favour by a police personnel concerning his criminal antecedents, filed in connection with his application for a second firearm licence. The judge observed that if a report showing nil antecedents was submitted for the petitioner's licence application, he would have been the ultimate beneficiary, and that the forgeries involved would have been committed to benefit him regardless of who physically prepared the report. The court held that merely asserting no personal role in that report “would not cut much ice.”

Considering the petitioner's long criminal history, the bench found the imputation of mala fide against the prosecution unsustainable. It then applied the seven illustrative categories laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, at paragraph 102, which set out the circumstances in which an FIR may be quashed, including where allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, where they are inherently improbable, or where the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. The court concluded that the petitioner's case was not covered under any of these illustrations.

What the Bench Declined to Grant

Having found that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the mala fide plea was unsustainable, the court declined to issue the writ sought quashing Case No. 127 of 2026 against the petitioner. No direction restraining coercive steps was granted, and no relief was extended on the ground of political rivalry urged by counsel. The court's finding that the investigation into Case No. 126 was itself credible and that the petitioner stood to benefit from the false antecedent report formed the basis for rejecting the parallel claim that Case No. 127 was a retaliatory or fabricated prosecution.

Order

Justice Arun Kumar Jha held that the petitioner had not made out a case for quashing the FIR of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 127 of 2026 and that his case was not covered by any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal. Finding no merit in the petition, the court dismissed it.