Criminal proceedings stemming from civil disputes must reveal substantial criminal elements; otherwise, they serve as a misuse of process and warrant quashing.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present CRLMC petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS challenging the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)-cum-JMFC, Jatni in I.C.C. Case No.71 of 2024, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 296 /351/304/356/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE :

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The dispute relates to land corresponding to Khata No. 88, Plot No. 298/474, Area 0.020 dec out of A.0.070 dec, Kisam- Puratan Patita, Mouza- Jatni Town Khas Mahal, Tahasil- Jatni, District- Khurdha.

(ii) Prior to the criminal complaint, the informant instituted Civil Suit No. 1012 of 2024 before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar seeking permanent injunction and ad- interim injunction alleging attempted encroachment by the present petitioners over the suit land.

(iii) During pendency of the civil suit, the informant filed I.C.C. Case No. 71 of 2024 alleging that on 12.11.2024 the petitioners were constructing a boundary wall over the disputed land and had abused him in filthy language.

(iv) The petitioners filed objections before the JMFC contending that petitioner No. 4 had purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 10.06.1996 and that the informant had signed the said sale deed as a witness.

(v) The petitioners further rely upon a previous civil suit (C.S. No. 220 of 2020) involving the informant which was compromised under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar, to assert a pattern of litigation conduct.

(vi) The sale deed and ROR standing in the name of petitioner No. 4 have now been brought on record through an additional affidavit for proper adjudication.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The core submission is that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, relating to title and possession over immovable property, and has been deliberately given a criminal colour to exert pressure during pendency of a civil suit.

(ii) It is contended that the learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without examining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged BNS offences which prima facie disclosed from the complaint materials.

(iii) The petitioners assert that the property stands recorded in the name of petitioner No. 4 by virtue of a registered sale deed, which was witnessed by the informant himself, thereby negating any allegation of unlawful encroachment or criminal intent in the action of the petitioners.

(iv) It is further argued that parallel initiation of criminal proceedings during pendency of a civil injunction suit is nothing but it amounts to abuse of process of law and falls within the parameters for quashing under inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

(v) Reliance is placed upon settled jurisprudence that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for harassment or for settling private civil scores when the substratum of the dispute is contractual or purely civil in nature.

(vi) The petitioners contend that continuation of the proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice, mental harassment, and misuse of judicial process.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order taking cognizance against the Petitioners and submitted that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, and therefore, no interference is warranted