Criminal proceedings initiated from civil disputes lacking prima facie case must be quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed by the petitioners by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order of cognizance dated 2nd February, 2022 and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 1672 of 2021 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela on the grounds inter alia that there is no prima facie case made out against them and furthermore, the dispute inter se parties to be civil in nature.

2. In fact, opposite party No.2 filed a complaint in 1.C.C. Case No. 126 of 2021 before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, Rourkela with the allegations made therein that a written report dated 18^th May, 2021 was lodged with the local police but no case was registered despite a copy of the same sent to the S.P., Rourkela on 21^st June, 2021. On receiving such a complaint on 5^th July, 2021, the learned court below sent it to the local police vide order under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., consequent upon which, Raghunathpali P.S. Case No. 170 of 2021 was registered. After closure of investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners under Sections 341 , 448 and 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C., whereupon, the impugned order of cognizance dated 2^nd February, 2022 was passed in G.R. Case No. 1672 of 2021 which is currently under challenge principally on the ground that the dispute to be civil in nature but has been given a colour of criminality.

3. Heard Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party No.1 and Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, namely, the complainant.

4. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the selfsame dispute, the matter is pending decision in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rourkela in C.S. No. 37 of 2021, which was instituted on 2^nd February, 2022, wherein, opposite party No.2 appeared and took adjournment for filing of defence and shortly thereafter, on 5^th July, 2021, such a complaint was filed before the learned Court below by making false allegations.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Sahu that after filing of the complaint, opposite party No.2 moved the Civil Court for interim relief to restrain the petitioners from obstructing free access to the common passage of the 4^th Floor of the apartment, which was rejected by an order dated 11^th March, 2022. According to Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners, since the matter is subjudice before the civil court and primarily a civil dispute, in order to pressurize the petitioners and settle score, with an ulterior motive, the complaint was filed. Referring to the following decisions, such as, Mohammed Ibrahim And Others Vrs. State of Bihar and Another (2009) 8 SCC 751 ; Devendra and Others Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 7 SCC 495 ; Joseph Salvaraja Vrs. State of Gujarat And Others (2011) 7 SCC 59 ; Randheer Singh Vrs. State of U.P. and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 942 and Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vrs. State of Karnataka and Others 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, Mr. Sahu contended that a civil dispute between the parties is turned to a criminal case at the instance of opposite party No.2, which is with an oblique purpose and malafide intention. Hence, according to Mr. Sahu, the order of cognizance under Annexure-1 is unsustainable in law and also the criminal proceeding pending before the learned court below which is, therefore, required to be quashed in the interest of justice.

6. Mr. Mohapatra and Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respective opposite pa