IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55077 of 2007 1. Surendra Kumar Jain, S/O Kanhailal Jain. 2. Rakesh Kumar Pawan @ Pawan Kr. Singh, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh. 3. Rajesh Kumar Punkaj @ Pankaj Kr. Singh, S/O Ajay Kumar Singh. All are residents of New Area Aurangabad, Ward No. 4, P.S. Nagar, District-Aurangabad.............................................Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bhaglu Sao, S/O Late Badri Sao, resident of Mohalla- New Area, Opp.-J.J. Hotel , Ward No. 4, P.S. Nagar, District- Aurangabad..............................................................Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate and Mr. Vijay Anand,Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the O.P.No.2 : Md. Gyasuddin, Advocate. ----------- 4. 16.04.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph no.1 of the petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Aurangabad, in Complaint Case No. 924 of 2005, corresponding Trial No.2027 of 2007 whereby the cognizance was taken under Sections 380 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code and process were issued against the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel 2 for the petitioners that the dispute is with regard to Khata Nos. 52 & 25, Plot No. 167(Ka) old 178 & 186 new for an area of 27 decimals. Initially, this property belonged to Mahadeo Prasad Gupta but, Subsequently in the year 1983, the son of Mahadeo Prasad Gupta, namely, Shambhu Prasad Gupta sold the property in question to Prem Lata Daruka and Ram Kishun Daruka by a registered sale deed. The vendor claims the property by virtue of gift. Subsequently the purchasers got mutation done in their favour. Thereafter with respect to properties in question the purchasers executed a special power of attorney on 06.09.2005 in favour of petitioner no.1 by virtue of which petitioner no.1 executed sale deed in favour of his wife and aunt on 24.09.2005 and 22.07.2005. Title Suit No. 150 of 2005 was filed by Mahadeo Prasad Gupta for setting aside the sale deed in favour of Prem Lata Daruka and Ram Kishun Daruka which is still pending. On 28.07.2005 an injunction was filed on behalf of the plaintiff of Title Suit No.150 of 2005 which was dismissed. Then on 07.10.2005 an 3 amendment petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff admitting the dispossession since 11.09.2005 which is apparent from Annexure-5 of the present quashing application. On 24.11.2005 the present complainant filed a petition for being added as party in Title Suit NO. 150 of 2005 which was subsequently allowed. A proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was also started between the parties which was dropped on 10.01.2006. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a case was filed by Tribhuwan Singh against the father of petitioner no.1 and others alleging theft from the first floor of the same property in which cognizance was taken and the same came to be challenged in Cr. Misc. No. 52504 of 2007 resulted into quashing of cognizance by a Bench of this Court on 21.4.2010. Hence it is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that for redressal of the civil dispute the criminal forum is being chosen maliciously by opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, however, submitted that complaint has been filed with specific allegation which 4 constitutes the offences alleged and learned court below after finding prima facie case took cognizance of the offences. After hearing both sides and perusing the records, I find that basically the dispute between the parties is with regard to the property in question for which title suit is pending and the criminal forum is being chosen by the complainant and the others for redressal of their civil dispute which has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Indian Oil Corpn Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others reported in 2006(6) S.C.C. 736 the Apex Court recorded its finding in paragraph no. 13 of the said judgment which reads as follows: 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. 5 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. In view of the fact that the prosecution has been launched for redressal of civil dispute and earlier criminal prosecution in connection with same property has already been quashed by the court with regard to father of the complainant, the present complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. Hence the order of cognizance dated 12.04.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 924 of 2005 including its entire prosecution is hereby quashed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)