AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 17-08-2026
Heard the parties.
Present petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashing of order dated 30.08.2018, passed by the learned ACJM IIIrd, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3557(c) of 2013.
The prosecution case is that the complainant entered into an agreement for purchase of land at Harnichak, Patna, through accused-petitioner and O.P. No. 3 namely, Ram Ishwar Rai and paid a total of ₹6.25 lakh towards the consideration. Petitioner allegedly contributed ₹1 lakh but later retained the original agreement and obtained another ₹1 lakh from the complainant on the assurance of returning it. Despite receiving the entire amount, O.P. No. 3 allegedly failed to execute the sale deed. The complainant further alleged that both accused connived with each other, withheld the original agreement, failed to transfer the land, abused him, and threatened to kill him when he demanded registration of the land.
On the basis of aforesaid complaint after enquiry the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 406 and 420 of IPC on 12.03.2014 against petitioner and O.P. No. 3 namely, Ram Ishwar Rai.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both O.P. No. 3 and this petitioner agreed with O.P. No. 2 as to purchase a piece of land belongs to O.P. No. 3. It is pointed out that as the original document was with this petitioner and same was not supplied within time to O.P. No. 2, he could not get executed the sale deed against the land in issue.
It is argued that after filing of the complaint petition the matter was compromised between O.P. No. 2 and 3, whereafter the sale deed for the purchased land was executed in favor of the complainant/ O.P. No. 2. It is submitted that this petitioner also paid Rs. 4,50,000/- to O.P. No. 3. It is further submitted that the allegation as raised through complaint petition, prima-facie does not make any cognizable offence against the petitioner rather he himself is victim of circumstance as despite paying Rs. 4,50,000/- to O.P. No. 3, the sale deed was not executed in his favor.
It is further argued that even otherwise the dispute primarily appears civil in nature for which the present complaint case is completely un-occassioned and un-warranted.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon para no. 18 of Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060) which reads as :-
18.Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, it was emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, this Court again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of process.
Learned counsel further relied upon para no. 102 of State of Haryana and Ors vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which reads as :-
“102.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1)Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)Where the allegations in the first informant report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3)Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of nay offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4)Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5)Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent persons can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7)Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as this petitioner was one of the purchaser of the proposed land from O.P. No. 3, where after filing of the complaint petition, O.P. No. 3 executed sale deed in favor of O.P. No. 2/ complainant qua his share of land and overall averment as made available through complaint doesn’t prima-facie constitute any cognizable offence against this petitioner and therefore , by taking a guiding note of principle nos. 1, 3 and 7 of Bhajan Lal case (supra), impugned order of cognizance dated 30.08.2018 with all its consequential proceedings, qua, above named petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Hence, this application stands allowed.
Trial Court Records, if any, be returned to the learned Trial Court alongwith the copy of this judgment.