IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38403 of 2006 DEBASHISH PALIT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Gautam Bose, Sr.Advocate. Ratna Das , and Vikash Jha, Advocates. For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party nos.2 to 4 : None. _________ O R D E R The petitioner who has been made to figure as one of the accused in Complaint Case no.1252 (C) of 2004 is aggrieved by and has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 1.3.2005 passed therein by Sri D.N.Tripathy, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections- 448,323,341,504,379/34 I.P.C. and has ordered for process against the accused including the petitioner. The instant Complaint case was initially preferred by Opp.Party no.2 who inter alia alleged that the mother of the petitioner, who had several residential and commercial accommodations in Thakurbari Road, Patna, had given one of such shops to him where he was living as a tenant since more than 53 years and he was regularly paying rent to the mother of the petitioner. It was further alleged that since he was suffering from several diseases and it was difficult to get proper treatment for want of money, he in the meanwhile came into contact with the petitioner who gave out that since he had good contacts with doctors and high officials, he could make arrangements for better treatment for him and under the garb thereof got five blank - 2 - papers signed by the original complainant in October, 2003. It is said that some 45 days thereafter, the complainant on coming to know that the petitioner had filed a case in the Lok Adalat against him for recovery of three months rent as also Rs.10,000/- appeared in the case and challenged the documents filed therein as being false and coercive in nature. It is further stated that on intervention of common friends , the matter was settled out of court and since the complainant was paying a meager rent it was agreed upon that he would pay Rs.5000/- and the petitioner would return all the blank papers signed by the complainant and allegedly in pursuance of the panchnama prepared , the petitioner withdrew the case on 17.2.2004 on receipt of Rs.5000/-. It is further alleged that on 26.5.2004, the petitioner along with co-accused Puran Chand Jain and two unknown others suddenly came at around 8.30 A.M. and asked him to vacate the premises. When the complainant remonstrated since he had already paid the money but the signed papers had not been returned back, the petitioner allegedly took out a revolver and insisted the complainant to sign some stamp papers and when the complainant refused to obey he was allegedly assaulted with slaps and kicks by the intruders which was witnessed by his son. Thereafter, the intruders left and while leaving the petitioner took his Titan wrist watch worth Rs.1200/- kept on the table and the co-accused took away a VIP briefcase containing ornaments ,sarees etc worth Rs.10,000/- It will not be out of place to mention here that although Opp.Party nos. 2 to 4 were duly noticed and they appeared through - 3 - Vakalatnama to contest the case, yet at the time of hearing none was present to contest the application. Assailing the impugned order taking cognizance it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would be apparent from perusal of the complaint petition that the complainant is admittedly a tenant of the petitioner and the entire matter, in fact, relates to a landlord and tenant dispute. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that when the tenant became a defaulter the petitioner initiated action by way of requesting him to vacate the premises and eventually filing an eviction suit in the court of law. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is a co-sharer of the property in question along with his widowed mother and married sister and filed L.A.( Eviction )Case No.265 of 2003 before permanent Lok Adalat ,Patna for eviction through compromise of the defendant ( complainant) and, accordingly a compromise petition duly signed by the parties and their respective lawyers supported by affidavit from both sides was filed before the Lok Adalat, wherein in Clause ‘B’ it was mentioned that the complainant had sublet a portion measuring 8ft x 15 ft, which is part of the original portion of the original tenancy to one Pawan Chand Jain who has been impleaded as accused no.2 in the complaint petition and it was agreed between the parties that the complainant would vacate the premises and would deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner by 30.11.2003 and in lieu thereof the petitioner would give up his claim for arrears of rent. It was also agreed that in order to maintain good relations the - 4 - petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant ( complainant) by way of monetary help against receipt signed by the complainant. It has further been submitted that the parties had filed another compromise petition before the Lok Adalat on 2.12.2003 duly affidavited and signed by both the parties and their lawyers whereby it was prayed that the said compromise petition be treated as part of earlier compromise petition and date of vacating the tenanted premises was extended up to 30.12.2003. On 23.12.2003, which was not a date fixed in the case the complainant filed a petition before the Lok Adalat stating that he did not know anything except Hindi and, as such, the earlier compromise petition may not be acted upon and this petition was filed through another advocate who was not one on the record in the said case and the Lok Adalat by order dated 17.4.2004 dropped the said case as there was no chance of compromise. The further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the order of the Lok Adalat , he filed a regular Eviction Suit No.1 of 2004 before the Munsif-IIIrd, Patna for eviction of the complainant and during the pendency of the suit the original complainant, Rajendra Prasad Sinha, died on 23.3.2005 and after his death the case was being conducted by his son, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha ( Opp.Party no.3 herein) and his brothers. On the aforesaid grounds, the specious submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire dispute is a civil one and is related to eviction of the complainant and the present complaint has been filed only with a motive to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. That apart, - 5 - it is submitted that from a plain reading of the complaint petition it would be apparent that the same is absurd and invariably improbable and no prudent person would be able to conclude that there was sufficient ground for criminally proceeding against the petitioner. Although the private Opp.Party, as stated above, had filed Vakalatnama, there was no person to contest the application in the court. The counter affidavit filed by them only seeks to defend their father’s action in filing the complaint petition. Admittedly, a civil suit being Eviction Suit No.1 of 2004 is pending adjudication for eviction of the tenant by the petitioner as landlord and there is a relationship between the petitioner and Opp.Party nos 2 to 4 as landlord and tenant. In such situation the filing of the complaint petition appears to be a modus operandi to frustrate the civil suit pending. Even the assertions made in the complaint petition verge on the absurdity and improbability which no landlord would care or dare to do and that , too , when a compromise petition had initially been filed before the Lok Adalat which subsequently was withdrawn by the original complainant on frivolous grounds. Times without number the Apex Court as also this Court have deprecated the present tendency of parties filing criminal cases to put pressure in the pending civil cases in an effort of the plaintiff of the civil case to enter into a compromise or withdraw from the litigation. What is worth noticing in the instant case is that the complaint case was filed shortly after filing of the Eviction Suit before - 6 - the Munsif and this gives rise to a lurking suspicion that the instant complaint case has been filed with the exclusive intent of frustrating civil suit where it appears that the criminal case filed is not bona fide but malafide . The Court is not deprived of power to quash the same as the same would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is clothed with sufficient power to prevent abuse of the process of the Court specially when the proceeding is frivolous and vexatious or malafide or when the proceeding has been instituted for circumvent a civil case which in my opinion is the situation prevailing here. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that allowing the proceeding to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated: the 6th August,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.