The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a senior Bihar government officer, holding that he was wrongly prosecuted for actions taken while performing his official duties. The court ruled that merely passing a stay order in a mutation matter cannot justify criminal charges, especially when legal safeguards for public servants were ignored
Background of the Case
The case arose from a long-standing property dispute involving a three-storey building in Rajendra Nagar, Patna. The complainant, acting as a power of attorney holder for his grandmother, alleged that the property was illegally mutated in favour of a third person by falsely showing him as the son of the original owner.
Read also:- Patna High Court Reviews Death Sentence in Triple Murder Over Land Dispute in Rohtas
While the mutation itself had taken place back in 2005, the controversy resurfaced when the petitioner-then posted as Executive Officer at the Bankipur Circle of Patna Municipal Corporation-passed an order in June 2013 staying mutation proceedings. The stay was issued because a civil title suit over the same property was already pending before a competent court.
Despite this, an FIR was registered in 2014, and later in 2020, the Bihar government granted sanction to prosecute the officer under serious cheating and forgery provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
Arguments Before the Court
The officer approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, and prosecution sanction. His counsel argued that:
- The officer had no role in the original mutation.
- The stay order was passed in a quasi-judicial capacity.
- Any grievance against such an order could only be addressed through appeal, not criminal prosecution.
- The sanction for prosecution was granted mechanically, without applying mind or considering statutory protections.
The State opposed the plea, alleging collusion with private parties.
Read also:- Maternity Leave Can’t Be Denied for Third Child: Madras High Court to Registry
Court’s Observations
Justice Sandeep Kumar carefully examined the record and noted that the officer’s only act was passing a stay order while discharging official duties. The court observed that mutation disputes involving title issues are routinely kept in abeyance until civil courts decide ownership.
“The order of stay passed by the petitioner was clearly in discharge of his official duty and subject to appellate correction,” the bench observed.
Read also:- UGC Equity Rules Face Supreme Court Challenge as Students, MPs Raise Alarm Over 'Biased' 2026 Regulations
The court emphasised that under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, even officers not formally designated as judges are protected when exercising quasi-judicial powers. The judgment clarified that revenue and municipal officers deciding mutation matters fall within this protection.
Critically, the court found the prosecution sanction dated 28 December 2020 to be “cryptic and non-speaking.” It did not explain why statutory protection was being withdrawn or what material justified criminal action.
“The sanction order suffers from clear non-application of mind,” the court stated, adding that such sanctions cannot be granted as a mere formality.
Read also:- Arrest Illegal for Not Telling Reasons: Tripura High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case
Final Decision
Concluding that the prosecution was legally unsustainable, the Patna High Court quashed:
- The FIR registered in Kadamkuan Police Station,
- The charge-sheet filed against the officer, and
- The government’s sanction for prosecution.
Allowing the petition, the court held that criminal proceedings initiated solely for passing a quasi-judicial order amounted to misuse of the legal process.
Case Title: S. Kumar @ Shailesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1897 of 2022
Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026
Advocates
- For Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate; Rohit Raj, Advocate
- For State: Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
