Patna High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Jan Suraaj Leader Naj Ahmed Khan, Says Allegation Of Mala Fides 'Doesn't Cut Much Ice'

The Patna High Court has held that mere allegations of political rivalry or mala fides cannot be a ground to quash an FIR when its contents disclose commission of cognizable offences. The Court observed that where the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of offences, the case would not fall within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal governing quashing of criminal proceedings.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against the petitioner under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner submitted that he is a politician and that his wife is the Prakhand Pramukh of Kesariya Prakhand. It was contended that owing to political rivalry, he had been falsely implicated in several criminal cases.

According to the petitioner, the impugned FIR was registered in the backdrop of another case relating to an allegedly false police report showing that he had no criminal antecedents while processing his application for a second firearm licence. The petitioner argued that he had no role in submission of the allegedly false report and contended that the authorities themselves were responsible for preparing it.

He further submitted that the subsequent FIR alleging assault on a police team during investigation of the earlier case was entirely mala fide. It was argued that there was no occasion for the police to visit his residence for investigation and that the allegations had been fabricated due to political animosity.

Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the petitioner was a habitual offender with 23 criminal antecedents and that investigation was still in progress. It was further submitted that when the police visited the petitioner's residence in connection with the earlier case, he and others allegedly assembled a mob and assaulted the police personnel with lathis, wooden planks and iron rods, causing injuries to them.

Examining the FIR, the High Court observed that it specifically alleged assault on the police party, obstruction in discharge of official duties and mobilisation of a mob at the petitioner's instance. The Court also noted that photographs and videos of the incident had been taken.

The Bench held that the allegations contained in the FIR clearly disclosed commission of cognizable offences. Rejecting the petitioner's plea of mala fides, the Court observed that the earlier FIR related to the submission of an allegedly false report showing that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents despite his application for a second firearm licence. The Court noted that even if the petitioner had not personally prepared the report, he would have been its ultimate beneficiary. It observed:

“Merely saying that the petitioner has no role in submission of such false report would not cut much ice. For the simple reason that whoever was involved in such forgery, the same was being done to benefit the petitioner.”

The Court further found that, in light of the petitioner's criminal antecedents, the allegation that the prosecution was actuated solely by mala fides was not sustainable. Referring to the principles governing exercise of jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the present case did not fall within any of the recognised categories warranting interference.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the plea for quashing of the FIR.

Case Title: Naj Ahmad Khan @ Pappu Khan v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 851 of 2026.

Appearance: Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy for the Petitioner.

Click Here To Read/Download Order