The court held that allegations arising from a civil dispute cannot constitute a criminal offence, and continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 153 of 2024, dated 01.09.2024, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 , 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

2. Briefly stated, the brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that informant/respondents No. 2 and 3 made a complaint to the police asserting that a civil dispute was pending between the informants and the petitioner No.1/accused Ganesh Dutt regarding the land located in Mohal Ber Ki Ser and Barse, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. Accused No.1 had filed a civil suit for declaration before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solan, H.P. which was decreed. The complainant filed an appeal, which was assigned to learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. who accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by accused No.1. No further proceedings were taken and the judgment attained finality. Accused No.2, Mahidner Dutt Sharma was posted as Village Revenue Officer and accused No. 3 Sudhir Thakur was posted as Field Kanungo. Accused No. 2 and 3 entered mutation No. 274 and 708 based on the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solan, H.P. to give an undue advantage to accused No.1. The mutation was attested behind the complainant’s back. Accused No. 2 and 3 did not summon the complainant and other persons as per the provisions of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Accused No.1 grabbed the compensation from the National Highways Authority of India. All the accused hatched a conspiracy to manipulate the revenue record. Regular Second Appeals are also pending before this High Court. The entire exercise was carried out to benefit accused No.1. The complainant also filed an application before the Human Rights Commission and Tehsildar; Solan submitted a status report stating that the mutation was wrongly entered. The application was subsequently dismissed by the Human Rights Commission. The Police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same. It was asserted that F.I.R. and criminal proceedings arising out of the same amount to an abuse of the process of the law. Learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. held that a decree of joint possession was already passed by this High Court in Regular Second Appeal (RSA). The predecessor-in-interest of the accused and the informant were held to be co-owners in RSA No. 183 of 1987. The petitioner filed objections to the application filed by the informant. It was ordered that an appeal should be filed against the order, if permissible under law. There is no wrong or illegality in sanctioning the mutation; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability and the petitioners having not come to the Court with clean hands. The contents of the petition were denied on merits; however, it was asserted that F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners. The investigation is continuing and documents are to be collected. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed.

6. I have heard Mr Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr Karun Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State and Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

7. Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a f