IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31854 of 2009 1. Gorakh Nath Singh, son of Late Lalji Singh 2. Basanti Devi, wife of Gorakh Nath Singh 3. Lalit Prasad Singh @ Lalit Kumar Singh, son of Gorakh Nath Singh, all are the residents of Mohalla- Vevekanand Park, Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, District and town-Patna Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Jawahar Lal, at Mubarakpur, P.S. Shahpur, District-Patna ------------ 3 19.12.2011 Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No.2 and learned counsel for the Stat. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.04.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 1207 (C) of 2008 whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 386, 468, 471/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The substance of allegation as set out in the complaint placed at Annexure-1 of the application charges the petitioners in omnibus manner of intruding over the land of the complainant and abusing him and while doing so threatening with extortion of amount of Rs. 15 lacs for allowing him to use his land. It is alleged that in the process the accused persons took away the watch of the complainant together with Rs. 5,000/-. Mr. Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated on general nature of accusations 2 and in absence of any specific allegation against any of the accused persons, chances of conviction are bleak and thus continuation of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the Court. He further submits that a consideration of accompanying circumstances, would manifest that the criminal case in question has been instituted for resolving a dispute which on face, is of a civil nature. Learned counsel in this regard has referred to a sale deed placed at Annexure-2 series whereunder the father of the complainant had sold a portion of the land bearing Khata No. 180 Plot No. 541 situated at Mauza- Saguna, Sub Registry- Danapur in the District of Patna in favour of the accused No.4, Smt. Bibha Singh and by another sale deed a part of the said land was sold in favour of the accused No.5, Smt. Sangeeta Singh. The said transaction has taken place on 25.10.1991 and 25.01.1992 respectively as is manifest from Annexure-2 series. It is contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively have purchased the aforesaid land from accused No.4, Bibha Singh, accused No.5, Smt. Sangeeta Singh respectively, and the sale deeds are placed at Annexure-3 series. The sale deed having been executed in favour of the petitioners on 15.05.2002 their names were entered in the review records and they have been paying rent and are being issued receipt in respect thereof, which are on the record of the proceedings. He thus submits that the land having been sold by the father of the complainant in favour of the accused Nos. 4 and 5 and thereafter having been transferred in favour of the petitioners as back as in the year 2002, no grievance or complaint was raised by the 3 father of the complainant until his death and it is only subsequent thereto that the complainant has chosen to institute the present proceedings after a lapse of almost 6 years since the petitioners came in possession of the property in question. With reference to plaint in Title suit No.1 of 2009 placed at Annexure-4 of the application, learned counsel submits that the mother of the complaint along with the complainant and his brother have also instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of titile over the suit property which are described in the schedule to the plaint. It is contended that although a prayer for declaration of title has been made by the plaintiffs in the said title suit but they have not questioned the veracity of the sale deeds placed at Annexures-2 series and 3 series nor any such payer has been made for cancellation thereof. He thus submits that in the aforesaid circumstances where a title suit in respect of the property in question is pending before a court of competent civil jurisdiction and in absence of any specific accusations against any of the accused persons including the petitioners in the complaint which carries a general and omnibus nature of allegation, the continuation of the proceedings arising out of a purely civil dispute would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant disputing the position submits that it is not the property which is a subject matter of the sale deed and in relation whereto, the complaint has been instituted rather as the petitioners chose to intrude over the other portion of the land that the present compliant was instituted. It was submitted that the allegations set out in the complaint itself make 4 out a criminal case as against the petitioners punishable under Section 323, 386 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the contention of the petitioners and submitted that the order impugned requires no indulgence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. A glace at the allegations as set out in the complaint petition manifest that although accusations have been set out against the petitioners but without specifying the offender. The allegations have been made in a most general and sweeping manner without qualifying the accusations. A perusal of the materials that have been placed on the record of the proceedings including the plaint placed at Annexure-4 makes it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that a property dispute is going on between the parties and for which the complainant together with his brother and his mother have also instituted a title suit claiming title over the entire land including the land which is subject matter of the present proceedings. The present case is another addition to the litigation whereby an attempt is being made to involve the accused by institution of a criminal case for resolving a dispute which is of a civil nature. The submissions of learned counsel that even considering the general nature of allegations as set out in the complaint petition with no specific accusation against any of the accused, the chances of a conviction of any of the accused persons on such omnibus nature of allegations would be very rather bleak and thus the continuation of the 5 proceedings in such circumstances would be an abuse of process of Court though finds some support in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Madhav Rao Jiwaji Rao Scindia since reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 709, but with a caveat and not as a rule of universal application. It is by now well settled that resorting to criminal proceedings for resolution of disputes which are manifestly of civil nature, is an abuse of the process of the Court. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court since reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 (M/s Indian Oil Corporation versus M/s NEPC) and the case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. versus State of Utter Pradesh & Ors. since reported in (2000)2 SCC 636. For the reason aforesaid, this application is allowed the order taking cognizance dated 15.04.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1207 (C) of 2008 and the entire proceedings arising therefrom is quashed and set aside. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)