‘No Specific Indication As To What Was Forged’: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Police Officer Accused of Fabricating Evidence in Cheque Dishonour Cases

Case Title: Bikramaditya Jha @ Vikramaditya Jha v. The State of Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 87927 of 2024
Coram: Justice Soni Shrivastava
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026

The Patna High Court has quashed an FIR against an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police accused of colluding with complainants and fabricating evidence during the investigation of cheque dishonour cases.

A Single Bench of Justice Soni Shrivastava held that the allegations did not disclose the offence of forgery against the petitioner, observing that the FIR contained no specific indication of what document or material had allegedly been forged or fabricated by him.

“Upon perusal of materials on record, it is gathered that the offence of forgery does not at all get made out as there is no specific indication as to what was forged or fabricated by the petitioner in order to constitute an offence,” the Court observed.

The Court also took note of the fact that no charge-sheet had been submitted in the case for nearly seven years after registration of the FIR. It observed that the continued pendency of the proceedings was causing unnecessary harassment to a government servant.

Fact

The petitioner, Bikramaditya Jha, was serving as the Investigating Officer in Kotwali P.S. Case No. 571 of 2017 and Kotwali P.S. Case No. 664 of 2017. Both cases arose from written complaints submitted by Lalan Kumar and Nirbhay Sinha concerning the dishonour of cheques involving an amount of ₹1 crore.

Subsequently, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 580 of 2019, which was the FIR challenged before the High Court, was registered on the self-statement of the Inspector-cum-SHO of Kotwali Police Station.

The FIR alleged that the informants in the earlier cases had acted in connivance with each other and that the petitioner, along with the Investigating Officer in a connected Buddha Colony Police Station case, had assisted them in recovering money from the accused by fabricating false evidence.

The FIR invoked Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 193 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The case originated from a complaint submitted before the Women’s Commission, New Delhi, by the wife of one of the accused in the earlier cases. The complaint was forwarded to the Director General of Police, Bihar, following which an internal inquiry was conducted and the present FIR was registered against the police officer and others.

Arguments

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Bijay Kumar Pathak and Nagendra Kr. Singh submitted that the petitioner had merely discharged his official duties as Investigating Officer.

It was argued that the petitioner had recorded witness statements under Section 161 CrPC and subsequently submitted Charge-Sheet No. 06/2018 on the basis of a supervision note issued by the Dy.S.P. (Law and Order), Patna, as well as directions contained in reports signed by the City SP (Central), Patna and the DIG, Central Range, Patna.

Counsel further submitted that the Magistrate had taken cognizance on the basis of the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind. There was, therefore, no material demonstrating that the petitioner had acted in collusion with informant Lalan Kumar.

The petitioner’s counsel also relied upon an earlier order dated July 26, 2024, passed by a co-ordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 48336 of 2019, by which the same FIR had already been quashed insofar as it concerned informant Lalan Kumar. The earlier order had also taken note of allegations concerning political vendetta.

Additional Public Prosecutor Ram Priya Sharan Singh opposed the petition and placed before the Court the case diaries relating to Kotwali P.S. Case Nos. 571 of 2017 and 580 of 2019.

Decision

After examining the case diary of the 2017 case, the High Court found that witness statements had been recorded and that the relevant material, including Report-2, had been considered before the charge-sheet was submitted.

The Court further noted that the investigation had been supervised by senior police officers and had ultimately resulted in the Magistrate taking cognizance.

Against this background, the Court found that there was no justification for registering a separate criminal case against the Investigating Officer merely on the allegation that the earlier investigation was defective.

The Court observed that if the investigation was considered deficient, the appropriate course would have been to order further investigation or adopt another legally permissible remedy, rather than initiate a fresh criminal prosecution against the Investigating Officer.

The High Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, concerning the circumstances in which criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations fail to disclose the commission of an offence.

The Court particularly emphasised that the FIR contained no specific indication regarding what had allegedly been forged or fabricated by the petitioner so as to constitute an offence of forgery.

It also considered the fact that co-accused Lalan Kumar had already obtained quashing of the same FIR on substantially similar grounds.

In view of the materials on record and the absence of specific allegations establishing the alleged offences, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed Kotwali P.S. Case No. 580 of 2019 insofar as it related to the petitioner, Bikramaditya Jha, and allowed the application.

Conclusion

The decision underscores that allegations of forgery must identify the specific document or material allegedly forged or fabricated and the role attributed to the accused. A criminal prosecution cannot be sustained merely on vague allegations, particularly where the underlying investigation had been conducted under the supervision of superior officers and had already resulted in a charge-sheet and judicial cognizance.

The Court also highlighted the importance of preventing prolonged criminal proceedings from becoming a source of unnecessary harassment where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence.