Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chandra Shekhar Jha
Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Late Chiteshwar Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 23.09.2013 as passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, whereby cognizance has been taken in connection with Complaint Case No. 3578 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 468 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Opposite Party No.2 namely, Rana Pratap Singh has alleged that he had purchased a land through registered sale deed in the name of his wife namely, Mani Mala Devi on 28.12.1993 at Mauza Maharajganj bearing Khata No. 184, Khesra No. 128, Thana No. 238 Rakwa 2 Kattha 7 Dhur 15 Dhurki and also enjoying possession. It is alleged that the accused persons have engaged their business of forged transaction of land since long time. It is further alleged that accused persons had made false power of attorney in connivance with a forged lady in the name of the wife of the complainant/O.P. No.2 on 10.06.2008. The complainant further alleged that on the basis of afo
A complaint must clearly disclose a cognizable offence; failing this, the court can quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse and ensure justice.
The court established that criminal proceedings should not be initiated for disputes that are essentially civil in nature, and that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked....
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.
The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal offences and quashed the proceedings due to lack of prima facie evidence and malafide intention.
The court established that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes, and that the existence of a civil remedy precludes the initiation of criminal proceeding....
The Magistrate must provide reasons for ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and failure to do so warrants quashing of the proceedings.
The court emphasized that a Magistrate must demonstrate satisfaction regarding grounds for proceeding against accused before issuing summons, and quashing of proceedings should be an exception.
A Magistrate must apply mind and provide reasons when forwarding a complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
