IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54259 of 2007 1. Md. Sadrul Alam, Son of Late Sk. Reyajuddin. 2. Bibi Samila Khatoon, wife of Md. Sadrul Alam. Both residents of village Beer Nagar Tola,Charrapatti, P.S. Bhargama, District-Araria......................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Md. Jahangir, Son of Late Md. Serajuddin, resident of Village- Beer Nagar Tola Charrapatti, P.S. Bhargama, District-Araria. ..........Opposite Parties. ----------- 04. 02.04.2010. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Araria, in complaint case no. 270 of 2003 as well as the order dated 07.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Cr. Revision No. 212 of 2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, has refused to interfere with the cognizance order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Notice was issued to opposite party no.2 on 06.02.2008 and subsequently opposite party no.2 appeared and got the matter adjourned to 19.02.2009 but in last one week the matter has been adjourned twice but no one is appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. However, learned counsel for the State 2 Mr. Umesh Lal Verma is in appearance. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that several plots of land as mentioned in complaint are the ancestral lands of the complainant but when the complainant went to make the payment of the land rent, the revenue employee conveyed that the rent receipt has been issued in favour of the petitioners on the basis of some compromise in Title Suit No. 165 of 2000. Consequently, on finding prima facie case vide order dated 20.05.2006 cognizance was taken under Sections 420,468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the accused has challenged the aforesaid order of cognizance before the learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, vide Cr. Revision No. 212 of 2007 which was dismissed on 07.09.2007 on the ground that during enquiry complainant on S.A. and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Hence there is prima facie case against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the frivolous case has been lodged by the complainant as for the same 3 lands Title Suit No. 165 of 2000 is going on between the parties which is pending in the court of Sub Judge-I, Araria. The complainant is the defendant in aforesaid Title Suit filed as far back as on 30.09.2000 in which a compromise was filed on 18.10.2001 and against compromise the opposite party no.2 has filed an objection on 06.02.2002 but suppressing all these facts the present frivolous complaint has been filed on 25.02.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that for any objection on the compromise, the procedure is laid down under order 23 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the opposite party no. 2 has exercised his option under the Code of Civil Procedure though no order on compromise petition has been passed as yet. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even assuming that the forged compromise petition was filed before the learned Sub-Judge-I, Araria, then also present criminal case is barred under Section 195(b)(i)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because forgery 4 was committed in the court of learned Sub Judge-1,Araria, and the concerned court is empowered to lodge the complaint under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in this regard learned counsel for the petitioners has cited two judgments reported in 2001(4) P.L.J.R. 73 and 2004(1)P.L.J.R. 57 which clearly emphasized that in the court if some forged documents have been filed then the concerned court was held to be entitled to lodge a complaint and in such a situation filing of complaint by the private persons has been deprecated. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it appears that the same issue is sought to be resolved by the parties by filing Title Suit No. 165 of 2000. It is further apparent that against the compromise petition so filed in the Title Suit, complainant filed objection which is pending but suppressing the entire things complainant has filed the present complaint petition. Moreover, the present complaint by private complainant for alleged offences may not be maintainable due to bar under the provisions of Section 195 (b) (i) (ii) of 5 Cr.P.C. But it appears that for redressal of civil dispute criminal forum is being misused which has been deprecated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and Others) reported in 2006(6) S.C.C. 736 in following words. 13. “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. Sugar 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 6 of justice.” It has further been held by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. (Supra) that while no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, but at the same time the Apex Court held that when a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution case, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings in accordance with law, one positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, and for such situations the courts can resort to the power under Section 250 of Cr.P.C. more frequently, where the court discern malice and frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. From perusal of the records, it appears that with regard to the dispute of the same land the title suit is going on between the parties and suppressing the same the present 7 complaint was filed maliciously obviously when the complainant realized of not getting the desired result before the civil forum. Now a tendency has developed, due to long delay in disposal of the civil cases to file the criminal prosecution for redressal of the civil dispute by way of pressure tactics and with object to get the grievances redressed quickly through the criminal forum. But there are other extremes of such tendencies where before the civil forum the same dispute is pending but suppressing the same subsequently the criminal cases are being filed for redressal the same grievance as in the present case the title suit is pending since 2000 whereas the complaint was filed in 2003 in such type of gross abuse of the process of the court by the complainant the more stern view should be taken and the heavy cost should be imposed under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C. This Court is restraining itself by not imposing any cost in the present proceeding but the aforesaid observation may be taken by way of caution and warning to all such complainants who want to misuse the criminal 8 forum for redressal of civil dispute. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do hereby quash the order of cognizance dated 20.05.2006 passed in complaint case no. 270 of 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Araria, as well as the revisional order dated 07.09.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Purnea, in Cr. Revision No. 212 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter has not proceeded after the cognizance level. However, it is made clear that any finding or observation in the proceeding will no way prejudice the claim of the either parties in the pending title suit or any appropriate proceedings. This application is, accordingly, allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)