Ram Kumari Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1930 of 2015 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the complaint petition of the petitioner under the provision of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

Initially, a Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2014 was filed by the complainant, and the said complaint was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly, Samastipur (Town) P.S. Case No. 235 of 2014 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the police after thorough investigation, submitted final form exonerating the petitioner. A protest petition was filed by the informant which was subsequently treated as protest-cum-complaint, after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and witnesses during the course of enquiry, the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the complaint under the provision of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., coming to a finding that the dispute appeared to be of civil nature and was for realization of money, whereas other allegations pertaining to assault and abuse appears to be ornamental in nature and the police case had ended in a complaint as the Court had accepted the final form and has referred several judgments in support of this finding, and the revisional court did not find any infirmities in the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The primary allegation is with respect to taking of money, not executing sale deed and not agreeing to the terms of agreement. The allegation appears to be of civil nature and for that the petitioner should have approached the competent court of civil jurisdiction by bringing a suit for specific performance. In the case of PEPSI FOODS LTD. AND ANOTHER vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS, reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and laws applicable thereto. The main contention of the complainant was that the accused person did not register land even after payment of agreed amount for selling land. Moreover, in the case of Anukul Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh as reported in 2025 INSC 1153 that a civil dispute cannot be given criminal color even at the post charge-sheeted state and in the case of Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 812 criminal colour given to civil dispute amounts to an abuse of the process of Court.

Taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the order 19.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Samastipur in C.R. No. 1930 of 2015 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. does not warrant interference, the quashing application is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.