IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18012 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR ANAL @ ANIL BHAGAT . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, ..Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Anal, ......Advocate, Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, ..Advocate, Counsel for the O.P.: Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, ......Advocate. Counsel for the State: Mr. Umanath Mishra, ........Addl.P.P. ----------- 04. 10.03.2011 The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 19.10.2005 passed by Sri B.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 1373 of 2005, whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 147, 148, 379, 323, 427 & 354 of the I.P.C. The accusation has been levelled with regard to plucking of mango, cutting of trees from the share of complainant on 27.06.2005 and making assault. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 27.06.2005 for which the complaint was filed on 22.07.2005. The complaint petition does not reflect any reason for such a delayed lodging of the case. Both sides are agnates and there is a land dispute between them, for which a title suit was also 2 pending. It appears that the complainant earlier also filed a Misc. Case No. 353P of 2005 which was transmitted to local police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. when the accusation was found false. Learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, however submits that prima facie the offence was found true during the enquiry by learned Court-below, hence, the order of cognizance needs no interference. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the view that the complainant has not provided any explanation for lodging the complaint after about one month of the occurrence which clouds bonafide of the accusation itself. Moreover, it appears from the complaint that there is serious land dispute between the parties and for redressal of the Civil dispute the criminal forum has been chosen as a pressure tactic which has been deprecated by Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation V. NEPC India Ltd. and Others 3 reported in 2006 V-6 SCC page 736. Paragraph-13 of the said judgment reads as follows: “While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri V. State of U.P. this Court observed: (SCC P. 643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 4 Considering the submission of the parties this Court is of the view that the continuation of the present proceeding in view of the aforesaid discussion will be abuse of the process of law. Hence, in the interest of justice the order of cognizance dated 19.10.2005 including the entire prosecution in Complaint Case No. 1373 of 2005 with regard to petitioners are hereby quashed. Mkr. ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)