AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner no. 1 died during present pending proceeding.
Now this petition survives only for petitioner no(s). 2 to 4.
The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 18.10.18 passed in Complaint Case No. 1401/2017 by learned A.C.J.M. 1st Kaimur at Bhabhua taking cognizance u/s 504, 506/34 of IPC and issue summon against the petitioners.
Crux of the case is that on 08.12.2017, O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 1401/2017 against the petitioners and others, alleging that they had filed T.S. No. 727/2017 in which the complainant was impleaded as Defendant No. 19. After receiving notice, the complainant came to Bhabhua and, upon inquiry, allegedly learned that the suit had been filed with an ulterior motive and by committing forgery. The complainant claimed that a partition had taken place among the ancestors about 48 years earlier, pursuant to which each pattidar was in possession of his respective share and had no connection with the shares of the other pattidars. He further alleged that when he questioned the accused about the filing of the suit and the proposed partition, they abused and threatened him, refused to give him a share in the remaining land, and threatened dire consequences. It was further alleged that petitioner no. 1 directed the other accused to assault the complainant, causing him mental distress. The principal allegation, however, was that T.S. No. 727/2017 was filed using forged signatures of Baijnath Lal Srivastava, Rinku Lal and Amar Nath, who were allegedly residing outside Bhabhua— Baijnath Lal and Rinku Lal at Dehradun and Amar Nath in Bhutan—and had not appeared before the court when the suit was filed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire dispute arises out of a family dispute relating to partition of ancestral property. The institution of Title Suit No. 727 of 2017 is the genesis of the present complaint. It is further submitted that the allegations regarding abuse and threat have been made only as a consequence of the existing civil dispute and no specific overt act constituting the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC has been disclosed against the petitioners.
It is further submitted that although the complainant had alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC against eight accused persons, the learned Magistrate did not find sufficient material even to take cognizance of the said offences. Cognizance was ultimately taken only under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners, whereas no cognizance was taken against Baijnath Lal Srivastava, Amar Nath Lal and Rinku Lal, who were also named in the complaint.
This Court has considered the allegations made in the complaint as well as the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the parties are involved in a dispute relating to ancestral property and a title suit for partition, being Title Suit No. 727 of 2017, has been instituted between them. The allegations made in the complaint are directly connected with the institution of the said title suit and the dispute between the parties regarding their respective shares in the ancestral property.
Reliance must be placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 823, where while considering the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C in a matter arising out of a civil dispute, the Apex Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used for giving a criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil in nature. The Court, in the facts of that case, found that the ingredients of the offences alleged were not made out and consequently quashed the criminal proceedings.
In the present case also, the foundation of the complaint is the dispute relating to partition of ancestral property and the institution of the aforesaid title suit. The allegation of abuse and threat has been made in the backdrop of the said civil dispute. The complaint does not disclose specific and convincing allegations so as to constitute the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC against the surviving petitioners.
The mere fact that an allegation of abuse or threat has been made in a complaint would not, by itself, justify continuation of a criminal proceeding unless the basic ingredients of the offence are disclosed from the allegations made in the complaint. In the facts of the present case, the allegations appear to have arisen out of the pending civil dispute between the parties.
This Court is also conscious of the fact that at the stage of taking cognizance, a detailed appreciation of evidence is not required. However, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and the criminal proceeding is found to be an offshoot of an essentially civil dispute, continuation of such proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.
Considering the nature of the dispute, the allegations made in the complaint and the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the surviving petitioners would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, accordingly, impugned order of taking cognizance dated 18.10.18 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, petitioner no. 2 to 4 arising thereof as passed in connection with passed in Complaint Case No. 1401/2017 pending before learned A.C.J.M. 1st Kaimur at Bhabhua is hereby quashed and set aside.
Hence, this application stands allowed.
TCR , if any, be returned to learned trial court alongwith the copy of this judgment.