IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7006 of 2011 1.MD. ARABI 2.MD. AFSAR, BOTH ARE SONS OF MD. SHAMIM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE THANA CHOWK, PURAB TOLA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT JAMUI -----PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-----------------------------------------------OPP. PARTY ----------- 2. 23.02.2011 The present application has been filed for restoration of Cr.Misc.No. 16912 of 2008 with alternative prayer for modification of the order dated 4.2.2011 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 16912 of 2008. The said Cr.Misc. application was taken up on 4.2.2011 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Since there was nothing on the record to suggest the present stage of the case and the order under challenge was dated 26.7.2003 whereby the petitioners’ application for discharge in a complaint case was rejected, hence, the said Cr.Misc. application was dismissed, which necessitated the filing of the present application. The present restoration/modification application has been filed on the ground that the same impugned order dated 26.7.2003 whereby the discharge application of the petitioners was rejected was under challenge in Cr.Misc.No. 20291 of 2004 and Cr.Misc.No. 25512 of 2 2003 whereby a Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.8.2007 considered the contentions of the parties and quashed the impugned order dated 26.7.2003 with regard to the other accused persons. The relevant extracts of the order read as follows : “Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as also the impugned order. The impugned order itself would go to show that at the time of hearing on the point of discharge the petitioners filed a large number of documents to show that the land in question belong to them. They are the judgment passed in G.R.Case no. 1210 of 2000, family partition deed, rent receipts, certified copy of the sale deed of 1998, municipal receipts standing in the name of Bibi Shagufta @ Bibi Shagufta Jabin, decree passed in eviction suit no. 3 of 1999, order passed in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and record of title suit no. 3 of 2001 filed by the complainant. In view of the overwhelming documents standing in the name of petitioners it is quite clear that dispute is purely of civil nature. In such nature of cases, filing of criminal case is highly depreciable and is misuse of the process of the court. Both the applications are accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 26.7.2003 is hereby quashed but only in respect of the petitioners.” 3 Considering the aforesaid contentions, no useful purpose will be served in restoring the Cr.Misc.No. 16912 of 2008. Hence, in the interest of justice, the order dated 4.2.2011 is being modified on the following grounds : Initially the complaint was lodged with allegation against the petitioners and others that on the alleged date of the occurrence accused persons armed with deadly weapons like spades, khanti, kudal etc. came at the spot and demolished the house of the complainant standing over plot no. 630 under Khata No. 17 and took away house materials like bricks, bamboos, doors etc. worth Rs. 25,000/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that absolutely frivolous case was filed since the complainant wanted to get his false claim established over the land in question. Since the land stands recorded in the name of some of the accused persons which was sold subsequently in 1998 to Bibi Shagufta @ Bibi Shagufta Jabin, who has also been made accused in the present case, 4 thereafter the accused persons filed Title Suit No. 3 of 2001 for eviction against the tenant. Considering the aforesaid facts that the ample documentary evidences this Court held that prima facie the land in question belong to the accused side, and quashed the proceedings with regard to the other accused persons. It is further submitted that the order dated 13.8.2007 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 20291 of 2004 whereby with regard to the other accused persons the impugned order dated 26.7.2003 was quashed, has not been challenged by the complainant. Hence no useful purpose will be served in allowing the present prosecution to continue which apparently appears to be a malicious one. It appears that the complainant has chosen the criminal forum for redressal of his civil grievances which has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others : (2006) 6 SCC 736, paragraph 13 of the said judgment reads as follows : “13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in 5 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 vs. 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 kbeen 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.” Considering the aforesaid facts, the order dated 4.2.2011 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 16912 of 2008 is modified to the effect that the order dated 26.7.2003 passed by 6 learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, in Complaint Case No. 1045(C) of 2000 including the entire prosecution of the said complaint case with respect to the petitioners are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 4.2.2011 passed in Cr.Misc.No. 16912 of 2008 stands modified. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.) Spal/