Hemanbhai V. Patel and Others vs State of Gujarat and Another

Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appears to be that the respondent No. 2 filed complaint before the Chief Judicial magistrate, Surat being Criminal Case No. 1432 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 170, 408, 409, 416, 418, 420, 460 of IPC on the accusation that for laying down pipeline in the agricultural land of the complainant, the signatures were taken on the agreement and the compensation paid is much less in comparison to the compensation paid to the other adjacent land owners. The additional allegation is also made that the accused identified themselves to be government servant and the complainant''s mother was made to sign the agreement and based on the said accusation it has been stated that the offences have been committed. The learned Magistrate had examined the complaint. Thereafter, the process was issued by him for the alleged offences as mentioned in the complaint. Under the circumstances, the present petition for quashing of the complaint.

It appears that the accused in the complaint have undertaken the work of laying down the pipeline for gas for and on behalf of the Gujarat Gas Company. As such lying down the pipeline for such purpose is governed by the provisions of The Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land)) Act, 1962 read with the relevant Rules. As per the provisions of the said Act, if the compensation is paid of a lesser amount, the person has right to raise the dispute and the matter is required to be referred to the concerned Court and thereafter the issue of additional compensation can also be decided. The case of the petitioner is that the action was taken for laying down the pipelines in the agricultural land and the compensation was to be paid for that purpose.

The grievance on the part of the complainant, as contended by Mr. Patel for the respondent No. 2, is that a negligible compensation has been paid and the action was not by the exercise of the power or under the provisions of the aforesaid Act, but was by way of consent agreement and the pipeline has been laid down as per the alleged agreement over which the signature was taken by misrepresentation and fraud and negligible amount of compensation has been paid.

Even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the original complainant is considered, at the most it may give rise to claim the compensation of an higher amount. If the action is within the scope and ambit of the Act of 1962, the original complainant would be required to approach before the competent authority. In the event the powers under the Act are not exercised, then also when it is by virtue of the agreement and if the case of the complainant is that the agreement was by way of fraud or misrepresentation, it will be for the complainant to resort to civil proceedings for getting additional compensation. If the compensation paid is of a lesser amount for deprivation of the land for laying down the pipeline, it would be essentially civil rights, for which civil proceedings are required to be resorted to and it cannot be said that the offence would stand constituted or committed. The allegation of impersonation is on a principal accusation that the signature is obtained and the lesser amount of compensation is paid. As stated by the complainant in the complaint the compensation has been paid by cheque, which has been encashed. Therefore, such allegation of impersonation cannot be considered independently and is to be read in context to the principal accusation made in the complaint.

It is by now well settled that the criminal prosecution by short-circuiting the civil remedy must be discouraged and such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to be maintained. Under these circumstances, it appears that when on the face of it the complaint would not constitute the commission of offence, it would be just and proper to quash the complaint. Further, the facts of the present case goes to show that resorting to criminal complaint could be said as an abuse of process of law when expressly the right is available under civil law for getting higher compensation. It is not a matter where civil wrong as well as criminal wrong is simultaneously committed, but is a matter where for alleged civil wrong a criminal prosecution is said to be initiated. Therefore, ends of justice would demand that the complaint filed by the original complainant is quashed in exercise of the power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

In the result, the complaint being Criminal Case No. 1432 of 1999 registered with the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is quashed.

It was submitted on behalf of the original complaint that the amount of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by the accused when the matters were dismissed for default and on account of the default by the learned Counsel for the applicant, this Court vide order dated 15.10.2007 in Criminal Application No. 7943 of 2007 and allied matters had observed that the Court will pass appropriate order at the time of final disposal of the matter for disbursement of the amount or otherwise and, therefore, the said amount may be paid to the original complainant.

Normally when the matters are dismissed for default or dismissed on account of the default or for want of prosecution, the respondent is to be compensated, if there is restoration or otherwise. Hence, the amount of Rs. 4,000/-, which has been deposited in the present proceedings shall be paid to the complainant or his authorised advocate by ''Account Payee'' cheque.

The petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.