Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 834 (RAJ)

Bhunda Ram S/o Sh. Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-18

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 101/2018 registered at Police Station Bagadi, District Pali for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 & 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 101/2018 came to be registered on the basis of written report filed by complainant respondent no.2 on 05.09.2018 stating therein that her father Dunga Ram had purchased a plot in village Bagdinagar on24.02.1968 from one Rajiya Seervi and since then, the complainant and her family are in possession. It was alleged that the accused, Bhunda Ram, Khuma Ram, and Uttam Chand, in furtherance of a conspiracy, executed a sale deed on 20th July 2018. Although Khasra No. 2318 was mentioned in the sale deed, which, in fact, does not belong to the complainant, the document falsely indicated the neighboring land as that of the complainant. It was alleged that the accused persons made an attempt to take possession of the plot of complainant. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is argued that the complainant has already filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed, which is pending consideration before the court of Additional District Judge, Sojat. It is argued that the petitioner no.1 is khatedar tenant of Khasra No.2318 and in that capacity, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and complainant has not suffered any loss by execution of the sale deed. Even if there is any dispute, the same is purely of civil nature and complainant has already filed a suit before the Civil Court. It is also argued that the basic ingredients of alleged offences are totally missing and therefore, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 IPC are made out. Learned counsel vehemently argues that the complainant is misusing the process of law as a tool to create pressure upon the petitioners for taking undue advantage. Therefore, misc petition be allowed and FIR may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel vehemently argues that the complainant is misusing the process of law as a tool to create pressure upon the petitioners for taking undue advantage. Therefore, misc petition be allowed and FIR may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that mere pendency of civil litigation before Civil Court will not create a bar for continuance of criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in a catena of judgments, it has been held that if criminality exists, civil proceedings with regard to same facts will not debar criminal proceeding. It is submitted that the facts are more than sufficient to show that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences for which, they are liable for criminal prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. 5. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record. 6. The primary issue that has been raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is to the effect that it is a civil nature dispute and that the registration of criminal case is an abuse of process of law. Invariably, in the case relating to cheating and fraud, there is generally some element of civil nature. The offences affecting the rights of a person in respect to his property and more so offences such as Criminal Breach of Trust, Stolen property, Cheating, Fraudulent Deeds and Disposition of Property, etc. a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused can be brought to justice. Similarly, in this type of cases a civil suit can also be initiated for recovery of money, property or title dispute as regard to the loss incurred. Regarding the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal proceedings may be given more significance than the civil proceeding, however there is no hard and fast rule regarding the same. Both civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated by the victim simultaneously with distinct impetus and objective. 7. The Court conscious of the interplay between civil disputes and criminal proceedings, in this regard we find it appropriate to refer to a decision of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , wherein this Court observed as under: “8. 7. The Court conscious of the interplay between civil disputes and criminal proceedings, in this regard we find it appropriate to refer to a decision of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , wherein this Court observed as under: “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. U (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [ (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.” 8. In the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs. the State of Karnataka & Anr. Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO. 1570 OF 2021 decided on 12.03.2024 has observed that: 6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 , this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626 , observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahar Jahan and Ors. v. State of Delhi and Ors. reported (2004) 13 SCC 421 wherein the Court was dealing with a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noticed that a civil dispute was given the colour of a criminal case. As therein a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending, when a civil suit was also pending before a competent court of law, it was opined: “It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that this very property which is the subject-matter of these criminal proceedings is also the subject-matter of the civil suit pending in the civil court. The question as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, we deem it proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may remain in operation during the hearing of the civil suit. 10. It was furthermore observed: "7. We have simply noted the contentions raised by the parties. The civil court, in our opinion, would be the most appropriate forum to take care of such grievances and pass such interim order as would reasonably protect the interests of both the parties. The civil court may issue an ad interim injunction, may appoint a Commissioner or Receiver or may make any other interim arrangement as to possession or user of the property which is the subject matter of proceedings in the civil court exercising the power conferred on it by Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure." 11. In the instant case, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the matter before it was derived from civil proceedings, where the primary issue concerned the possession of the parties over the disputed property. Similarly, in the present case, the contention of Petitioner No. 1 is that he has sold the land, of which he was the khatedar, to Petitioners No. 2 and 3 and thus has no connection with the land purchased by the father of the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) asserts that the petitioners have attempted to unlawfully seize the land, knowing that it had already been sold to the father of the complainant. It is true that criminal complaint cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature, it must be noted that if the allegations in the complaint or FIR prima facie establish the ingredients of the alleged offence, the criminal proceedings shall not be interfered with. It is true that criminal complaint cannot be quashed solely on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature, it must be noted that if the allegations in the complaint or FIR prima facie establish the ingredients of the alleged offence, the criminal proceedings shall not be interfered with. However, the property that forms the subject matter of these criminal proceedings is also the subject of a pending civil suit. The question of possession or entitlement to possession of the property will be adjudicated by the civil court. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No. 101/2018 registered at Police Station Bagadi, District Pali for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 & 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby quashed. Stay petition is also disposed of.