The court quashed criminal proceedings as the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and were deemed an abuse of process, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present quashing petition has been preferred to quash the order dated 27.07.2015 passed in C.A. No. 2293 of 2014, where learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Katihar took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) against the petitioners.

3. Opposite Party No. 2 fails to join the present proceedings.

4. From the crux of complaint petition it appears that one Jitendra Yadav filed a complaint case before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, alleging that Triveni Pd. Mandal made agreement for sale of a piece of land measuring 4 Acre 2 Kari of Mouja Pokharia, P.S.- Dandhora, Jamabandi No. 217, Thana No. 73, Khata No- 109, Khesra No- 98,47,46,102,103 and 17. It is further stated that Rs. 3 Lacs (Three lacs) price was fixed for land and Rs. 1.5 lacs was paid at the time of agreement and Rs. 1.5 lacs was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. When accused/petitioners demanded remaining Rs. 1.5 lacs, complainant alongwith his brother-in-law went to Triveni Mandal's house for payment of remaining amount. All accused persons were present over there, who after receiving payment of balance amount refused to execute sale deed in favour of complainant. Accused persons also assaulted with fist and slap to O.P. No. 2, where accused Ramanand Mandal took chain from the neck of complainant which cost about Rs. 20,000/- and another accused Dev Kumar took Rs. 20,000/- from the pocket of his brother-in-law and they advanced threat.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that present criminal case was lodged out of ulterior and oblique motive to give a criminal color to a civil dispute for which a title suit bearing no. 167 of 2010 is pending before the Court of learned Sub-judge 1, Katihar. It is pointed out that in 2013 itself, petitioner no. 1 lodged complaint case against O.P. No. 2, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2103 of 2013, subsequent to that present complaint case was filed by O.P. No. 2, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 2293 of 2014. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention to annexure 4, which is a judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/- dated 16.03.2013, where O.P. No. 2 accepted that he received total of Rs. 5,00,000/- and as now no more dues stands against petitioners. It is submitted that having all such backgrounds, where dispute appears settled, on false and imaginary grounds, present criminal complaint case was lodged with view to harass petitioners out of ulterior and oblique motive and therefore impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of State, opposes the application.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce the paragraph no(s). 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as reported in Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of West Bengal and Another as reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 90 which reads as under :-

6. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand , this Court held:—

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of 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 the 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.”

7. In Vesa H