Prashant Rajgarhia vs State Of Bihar and Ors

Purnendu Singh, J

Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Dr. Ajeet Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1265(C) of 2021 by the learned ACJM-I, Bettiah, West Champaran, by which, complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner had preferred protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, which was not entertained by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, considering the fact that final form with case diary shows that the matter relates to land dispute. The protest petition was converted into a complaint case and record was transferred under Section 192(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of learned A.C.J.M. 1, Bettiah for further enquiry as per the law. Learned A.C.J.M., 1, vide order dated 13.10.2023, after considering the entire facts as contained in the complaint, has arrived at conclusion that the matter relates to civil dispute relating to dispute between the parties with respect to certain land for which, there is agreement between the parties and on the basis of information on record, had dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court has been of consistent view and has made caution to the learned District Courts, as well as, High Courts, particularly, High Court is required to sparingly exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person? The answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out.

The proposition has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (2009) 5 SCC 528.

In the present case, the manner in which the complaint has been drawn against the petitioner in absence of any element of criminality no criminal case can be made out.

I don't find that the learned District Court has committed any error in rejecting the complaint of the petitioner in view of the fact that he has arrived to the finding that complaint don't disclose a criminal offence and I find that the said conclusion is supported by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673, in which, the Apex Court in paragraph no. 12 has held 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."

Accordingly, I don't find to interfere with the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1265(C)/2021, CIS No. 1265/2021 (Prashant Rajgarhia vs. Nishant Raj & Ors.).

The petitioner, however, is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

The present application stands disposed of.