AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 21-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.
The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the order dated 08.11.2016, passed by learned S.D.J.M., West, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 486 of 2016, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the allegation, the petitioners and the wife of the complainant, namely Babita Devi, have connived with each other and fraudulently the said Babita Devi executed a sale deed No. 7801 dated 19.11.2015 in favour of Sriyansh Shubham, a minor son under the Guardianship of his father, petitioner No.1 (Birendra Kumar), appertaining to 4 decimals of land bearing Khata No.138, Plot No. 5384.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no.1 (Birendra Kumar) had purchased a piece of land on behalf of his minor son from Babita Devi. It is next submitted that petitioner no.2 (Ram Chandra Singh) is a witness of the sale deed executed by Babita Devi in favour of the minor son of the petitioner no.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that after Babita Devi executed the sale deed his brother-in-law Krishna Deo Singh instituted a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 356 of 2016 in the competent court of civil jurisdiction seeking to declare the sale deed executed by the said Babita Devi as null and void.
It has further been submitted that Opposite Party No.2 herein is the husband of Babita Devi and he has filed the instant complaint case implicating the petitioners and his wife.
It is, thus, submitted that petitioner no.1 as guardian of the minor son purchased the property in the name of his minor son and petitioner no.2 was a witness to the sale deed and, as such, no imputation can be alleged against the petitioners that they entered into a fraudulent transaction with Opposite Party No.2.
It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true, in that event, it is the wife of Opposite Party No.2, who cheated the petitioner no.1 by selling the piece of land, to which she was not having title.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and has relied on various judgments. Learned counsel for the petitioners has firstly relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. versus Bhajan lal & Anr., reported in 1992 Supplementary (1) SCC Page 335, and has relied upon Category Nos. 1, 3 and 7 of the said judgment in paragraph 102.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636, and has referred to paragraph 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“8.Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. 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.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, and has referred to paragraph 27.8, which is reproduced hereinbelow :-
“27.8.Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a “civil wrong” with no “element of criminality” and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 and has referred to para-12 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-
“12.While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (2022) 14 SCC 572 and has referred to para 38 to 44, which reads as under:-
“38.Having considered the relevant arguments of the parties and decisions of this Court we are of the considered view that existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention has not been made out against the appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, pursuant to which Respondent 2 has even instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasised upon by this Court, by way of an observation rendered in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , as under : (SCC p. 749, para 14)
“14.While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, 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.”
39.It was also observed : (Indian Oil Corpn. Case [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , SCC pp. 748-49, para 13)
“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. … 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 though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.”
40.On an earlier occasion, in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] , this Court has also observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8)
“8.Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of 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.”
41.Furthermore, in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] regarding exercise of inherent powers under Section 482CrPC, this Court has laid down the following categories of instances wherein inherent powers of the Court can be exercised in order to secure the ends of justice. These are : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
“102.… (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
42.Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix, it can be safely concluded that the present case clearly falls within the ambit of first, third and fifth category of the seven categories enlisted in the abovesaid judgment. The case therefore warrants intervention by this Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482CrPC. We find that there has been attempt to stretch the contours of a civil dispute and thereby essentially impart a criminal colour to it.
43.Recently, this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. [Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626] , has again reiterated the long standing principle that criminal proceedings must not be used as instruments of harassment. The Court observed as under : (SCC p. 641, para 33)
“33.… There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra [Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 76] extracted above.”
44.Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parag Kishore Satoskar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. in SLP (CRL.) No. 3933 of 2025 and has referred to Paragraph Nos. -17, 20 and 23 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-
“17.In Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P.6, this Court held that the averments of the information are not the sole material, and that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings the Court owes a duty to look into the attending circumstances emerging from the record. Those circumstances here are these. The agreement was terminated on 08.07.2024. Within a fortnight, on 23.07.2024, the respondent No. 2 caused a legal notice to be issued, and on 29.07.2024 he addressed a further communication to the Managing Director. Neither breathes a word of an advance of Rs. 73,00,000/-, or of Rs. 41,50,833/- wrongfully retained; the grievance in both is that goods were supplied to him at a price higher than that charged to another, and in the second he asserts that he continues to hold the Company's goods worth about Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Company replied on 11.09.2024, rejecting the complaint and demanding Rs. 5,79,239/-. The information report followed more than two months later, and the case of an unreturned advance was made in it for the first time. That is a circumstance which this Court is persuaded to weigh in.
20.There is a further and connected difficulty. The information alleges both cheating and criminal breach of trust upon the identical set of facts. As Delhi Race Club (supra) explains, the two offences are antithetical. In cheating, the property is parted with because the owner has been deceived, and the dishonest intention exists at the inception. In criminal breach of trust, the property comes lawfully into the hands of the accused and is dishonestly dealt with thereafter. The registration of the first information report for both offences upon one indivisible set of allegations is an indication that the allegations were not measured against the ingredients of either.
23.Taking the allegations in the first information report at their face value and accepting them in their entirety, this Court is satisfied that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of the BNS are not made out, no fact being alleged from which a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception could be inferred; and that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 316(2) BNS are not made out, entrustment not being alleged at all. The matter falls within the first of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) as stated above. To permit the proceeding to continue would be to permit a dispute arising from a written commercial contract, to be pursued through the machinery of the criminal law, and that would be an abuse of the process of the court.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to these judgments, has submitted that when a dispute is essentially of civil nature and has been given a color of criminal offence, criminal proceedings cannot be ensued, as a shortcut, when remedy is available in law. It has also been submitted that in the present case the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and has been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, wrecking vengeance and by way of personal grudge and the first information report, even if they are taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute prima facie material against the petitioners. Moreover, it has been submitted, referring to these judgments, it is apparent that from the records and documents, predominantly, at best, a civil wrong can be said to have been committed with no element of criminality and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of criminal offence, the Court may be justified in quashing the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the best remedy available to the informant was to approach a competent Court of civil jurisdiction by filing a Title Suit, which they have rightly filed and the criminal prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of the Court.
Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 have opposed the prayer of the petitioners and have submitted that the petitioners had the clear intention of cheating the informant from the very inception.
Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted, referring to Mitakshra Law that the allegation appears to be justified. It has further been submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance is good in law and on facts both and constitutes a prima facie case against the petitioners and, hence, the impugned order taking cognizance may not be interfered with.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the civil nature of the allegation as also the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the prosecution against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of court and accordingly order dated 08.11.2016 passed by learned S.D.J.M., West, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 486 of 2016 is hereby quashed as against the petitioners.
The application stands allowed.