AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 24-08-2026 Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State, while none appears on behalf of O.P. No.2.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with respect to petitioner No. 2, Shiva Devi, since she has died.
Permission is granted.
This application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner No. 2.
The instant application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of the order dated 28.06.2018 passed in Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016 (G.R. No. 678 of 2016) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 477/34 of I.P.C. by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.
Initially, a complaint was filed, which was sent to police for registration of the F.I.R. under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereafter Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016, (G.R. No. 678 of 2016) was registered, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 477/34 of I.P.C., wherein complainant/informant alleged inter alia that the joint family ancestral property, belonging to the descendants of five brothers, including the complainant's branch, remained unpartitioned, while the accused, Parmanand Singh, acted as the Karta during the absence of other co-sharers, residing outside for their livelihood. Taking undue advantage of his position and ignoring a prior civil court decree (T.S. No. 33/77 dated 27.03.1982) in favor of the complainant, Parmanand Singh, along with co-accused persons, allegedly created fake documents and executed two illegal sale deeds on 29.03.2016 for the portions of the joint family land in favor of Nand Kishore Yadav, Anju Devi, and Rishav Raj, with Pramod Mishra acting as an identifier with full knowledge of the joint title. It has further been alleged that upon being confronted, the accused persons threatened the family members, committed criminal breach of trust, and caused wrongful loss. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C, to the police for registration of the F.I.R.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that their cousin brothers are under presumption that the petitioners would get more share in the family property, and under such presumption, the present case has been lodged. It has further been submitted that the dispute primarily is civil in nature and a Title Suit bearing No. 49 of 2016 has been filed before Sub Judge-1, Madhepura, on 30.06.2016, for partition as well as cancellation of sale deed in question and thereafter, the present complaint case came to be lodged, on 01.09.2016, simultaneously in order to put pressure and force the petitioners to succumb to the illegal demands of the complainant/informant.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452, and has, thus, submitted that allegations against the petitioners is purely civil in nature and would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS, reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749, and has submitted that summoning order is not a matter of course, a Magistrate must apply his mind to the complaint/F.I.R. and the material before him and must be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, that does not require proof of guilt, but does require the Magistrate to be prima facie satisfied that the accused may be guilty. A mechanical summoning order without application of mind can be quashed. At the quashing stage, the High Court must not embark an evaluation of the evidence, but must confine itself as to whether the material before the Magistrate justifies the issuance of process.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has, thus placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgments and the materials as well as averments in the complaint, submitted that a civil liability ensues without any criminal intent. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have appeared in the title suit and have filed their written statement and are contesting the title suit.
Learned senior counsel, referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has submitted that categories No. 1, 3 and 7, as mentioned in paragraph 102 of the said judgment, would squarely cover the case of the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the present prosecution against the petitioners are attended with malice, personal vendetta and the same is vexatious one.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
Heard the parties and perused the record, the averments in the complaint clearly suggest that it is a civil dispute, whereas initially a title suit was filed, but subsequently a complaint case also came to be filed followed by registration of the F.I.R. The judgments cited by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners squarely covers the case as against the petitioners to be malicious one and of civil nature. The continuation of proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
Resultantly, the order dated 28.06.2018, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2016 (G.R. No. 678 of 2016), as against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.