Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when disputes are civil in nature, and complaints lacking essential criminal elements should be quashed to prevent abuse of legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to quash the criminal proceeding in connection with 1CC No.315 of 2016 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar initiated at the instance of the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The background facts of the case are that the mother of the Opposite Party No.2, namely Pramila Paikray, the sister of the present Petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.825 of 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar against the Petitioner praying for decree of partition of the suit properties allotting 1/4th share in her favour. In the said suit, the mother of the Opposite Party No.2 described the Petitioner as the son of the Raghunath Samantray and nor Lokanath Samntaray. Finally, the aforesaid suit was decreed on the basis of the compromise filed by the Parties, wherein it was admitted that the Petitioner is the son of Lokanath Samntray and not Raghunath Samantray. Having satisfied with the decree passed by the learned court on the basis of the compromise, the mother of the Opposite Party No.2 namely Pramila Paikray got the properties fell in her share mutated in her name. Subsequently, she sold away the said properties in favour of one Gangadhar Sahoo of Baramunda, Bhubaneswar in the district of khurda. It is alleged by the Petitioner that while filing the suit, the said Pramila Paikaray intentionally described the Petitioner as son of Raghunath Samantray instead of Lokanathi Samantray but the Petitioner consistently asserted him to be the son of said Lokanath Samantray. After about 3 years of the said final decree, the said Pramila Paikray filed CMA No. 35/11 before the learned Civil Court U/s 151 CPC, inter alia, praying to set aside the compromise decree on the ground that the same has been obtained by committing fraud. The petitioner contested the said proceeding by submitting his objection. Despite the objection, the learned Trial Court accepted the case of the Petitioner for consideration whereupon the Petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Petition before this Honhle Court in CRP No.3/12. This Court by order dated 03.02.2012 stayed the further proceeding in the aforesaid CMA No. 35/2011. When the matter stood thus, in the year 2015, the said Pramila Paikray filed another CMC No.636 of 2015 under Section 144 (2) Cr.P.C against the Petitioner and some others, inter, alia, seeking for order under the said provision of law not to raise any construction over the scheduled-A land of the said Petition. When an interim order was passed in the said proceeding, the Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in CRLREV No.457 of 2015 before this Court. During pendency of the aforesaid Criminal Revision, the Addl. DCP-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bhubaneswar vide order dated 28.07.2015 was pleased to drop the said proceeding, inter alia, mentioning therein that the dispute are civil in nature. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that in the meantime, Pramila Paikray filed so many cases before the learned civil court including the said CMA No.35 of 2011 but the CMA No.35 of 2011 got stayed by this Court. In the meanwhile, on the basis of a complaint case filed by the son of Pramila Paikray, inter alia allegeing that the Petitioner is the son of Late Raghunath Samantray but claimed to be the adopted son of Lokanath Samantray and has sold certain properties and further that the Petitioner managed to obtain a compromise decree in the civil suit against his mother namely Pramila Paikray. His mother Pramila Paikray, being an old lady did not know the implication of putting signature on court paper and her signature in the alleged compromise decree and now s