Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against GATE AIR 45 Holder, Says Student Protest Was In 'Youthful Exuberance'
Image By: Siddharth Anand
The Patna High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against an engineering student accused of vandalism and assault during a protest over internal assessment marks, observing that the incident was merely “an act of protest undertaken by a number of students in youthful exuberance” and that continuation of the proceedings would unfairly jeopardise the petitioner's future.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava quashed the FIR against the petitioner, who had secured All India Rank 45 in the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE) 2025, noting that the pendency of the criminal case was preventing him from pursuing higher studies and employment opportunities.
The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered in 2019 under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty), 379 (theft) and 427 (mischief causing damage) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner, then a second-year B.Tech student, along with around 25 other students, created a nuisance on the premises of Supaul College of Engineering by allegedly vandalising the office, damaging furniture and assaulting staff members. The protest arose from dissatisfaction over internal marks awarded to students.
The petitioner contended that none of the offences alleged were made out from the facts stated in the FIR and that the allegation of theft under Section 379 IPC was merely ornamental. He further submitted that neither he nor the other students were informed about the registration of the FIR and came to know of it only upon receiving a notice under Section 41A CrPC in 2023 while applying for a character certificate.
It was also submitted that despite securing AIR 45 in GATE 2025, the petitioner was unable to pursue higher studies or secure suitable employment because of the pendency of the criminal case. The State did not seriously oppose the petition and acknowledged that the dispute between the college authorities and the students had subsequently been resolved. After examining the FIR and the case diary, the Court observed:
“The incident would merely be an act of protest undertaken by a number of students in youthful exuberance which later stood resolved.”
The Court further noted that the allegations were trivial in nature, that cordial relations had been restored between the students and the college authorities, and that the allegations, on their face, did not disclose the commission of the offences alleged. Holding that the case fell within the first category laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal governing the exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, the Court observed that the FIR deserved to be quashed.
The Bench also took note of the extraordinary delay in investigation, observing that although the FIR was registered in 2019, no charge-sheet had been filed even by 2025. It clarified that while further proceedings before the trial court had been stayed, the investigation itself had never been stayed. The Court observed:
“The investigation cannot be permitted to go on endlessly as the same would result in persecution in place of prosecution.”
Holding that the pendency of the FIR was adversely affecting the petitioner's career prospects, the Court quashed the FIR insofar as it concerned the petitioner.
Case Title: Rahul Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 66457 of 2024.
Appearance: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Mr. Gulfeshan and Mr. Gyaneshwar for the Petitioner. Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh for the State.