IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for disputes that are purely civil in nature, and the High Court has the authority to quash such proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Biren Poddar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State as well as Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.05.2018 in connection with Complaint Case No.322 of 2017, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint case has been initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant namely Rakesh Mahato before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur alleging that partitioner had cheated his father by inducing him to enter into an agreement for development of the land by constructing multi-storied flat wherein 50% of the said flats were to be handed over to the father of the complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was to be paid and a Scorpio vehicle was also to be given by the petitioner to the father of the complainant besides Rs.15,87,500/- and the vehicle was also illegally removed by the petitioner. The complainant further alleged that a criminal case was also filed againt the complainant in respect of the vehicle.

4. Mr. Biren Poddar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that development agreement was made on 17.05.2010 between Balram Mahato and this petitioner with regard to development of the land in Ward No.1, JNAC Town, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East) in old khata no.34, old plot no.376, corresponding to new survey plot no.806 and 807 (portion) of New khata no.409. Mr. Poddar, the learned senior counsel further submits that by way of registered sale deed dated 22.05.2010 the father of the complainant namely Balram Mahato has sold the said land in favour of the petitioner on payment of considerable amount of Rs.15,87,500/-. He submits that after execution of the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the petitioner, family members of the complainant lodged Title Suit No.162 of 2010 through Anjana Mahtain sister of the complainant and daughter of Balram Mahato which is admitted in paragraph no.8 of the counter affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2. He further submits that one Title (Partition) Suit No.140 of 2013 has been filed by another family member of the complainant namely Amal Kishore Mahto for partition of his portion inter alia plot no.806 and 807. It is admitted in paragraph nos.8, 11 and 13 of the counter-affidavit filed by the O.P.No.2. He submits that in Title Suit No.162 of 2010, a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 was filed which was dismissed on 03.07.2014. Mr. Poddar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that M.A. No.137 of 2016 was filed before this Court which was dismissed on the ground of limitation by order dated 09.12.2022. He further submits that before dismissal of the M.A. case, a complaint case being Complaint Case No.2971 of 2016 was filed by Kanchan Mahto, sister of the complainant on 21.11.2016 with regard to said development agreement dated 17.05.2010. In the said case, the allegation was made of non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the development agreement. The said complaint case was converted as Sonari P.S.Case No.8 of 2017 and the police submitted the final form saying that case is of civil in nature. The protest petition was filed against that cognizance has been taken and that is pending. He further submits that present complaint case in spite of all these cases, have been filed against the petitioner on 06.02.2017. He submits that the learned court has not taken cognizance and dismissed the said complaint on 13.07.2017. He further submits the Criminal Revision No.251 of 2017 was filed by the O.P.No.2 which was allowed by order dated 07.03.2018 setting aside the dismissal order of the complainant and was remitted by the learned revisiona