The Court held that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and not criminal in nature. The Court further held that the allegations made by the revisionist did not constitute any cognizable offence and hence, the police were not obligated to register an FIR. The Court also held that the Magistrate was correct in rejecting the revisionist's application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred by the applicant revisionist, whose application preferred under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital vide its judgment dated 28th May, 2018, as rendered in Misc. Case No. 135 of 2018, Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.

2. Few basic questions which the revisionist has sought to raise in the present Revision are :

1. There may be several civil or criminal disputes, which may be inter se pending between the same set of parties which may be having a civil nature and criminal nature and its respective civil consequence, but still, if it involves the ingredients of criminal offences and has any element of criminality, still it ought to have been registered under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. as an F.I.R. for initiation of criminal proceedings.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the test of lodging of the criminal proceedings by the Court would depend upon the ingredients of the offences alleged of and it cannot be denied merely because of the fact that it involves the incidental adjudication of civil disputes between the parties.

3. The contention of the revisionist is that irrespective of the fact that the dispute between the parties under the same set of facts and circumstances may also simultaneously give rise to the civil and criminal liability in relation to the same subject matter which is involved in the civil case.

4. Lastly, he submits that merely that a case involves some element of a civil liability, it solely cannot be a ground to quash the criminal complaint or not to registered the criminal complaint with regard to the set of allegations leveled by the applicant under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

3. Before venturing into the merits of the matter, it is necessary to point out that as per the array of parties, apart from the fact that the revisionist is an applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the respondent No. 3 Jakir Hasan, is said to be one of the partners of a Partnership Firm, along with one Mr. Govind Ballabh Pant, which was said to have been executed between them on 12th August, 1990. Out of the said partnership deed, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the present Revision were the witnesses of the partnership deed dated 20th August, 1990, executed between the parties.

4. The controversy, at hand, was initiated when on 16th August, 1986, when one Mr. Govind Ballabh Pant, had moved an application before the Nagar Palika, praying for to allot him piece of a land on rent which was situated in the Bakery Compound, Mallital, Nainital, which was otherwise recorded with the Nagar Palika in its records. He submitted that the permission to occupy the said property was, in fact, given to him by the Nagar Palika and he continued to occupy the same for a considerable long period and thus, he submitted that since the land, in question, which is of about 1200 sq.feet was a land adjoining to the Saw Mill, which was being operated by Mr. G.B. Pant, of which, he contended that he was holding the saw mill licence to run the Saw Mill. It was the case of Mr. G.B. Pant that he had been remitting the rent to the Nagar Palika for last over five years in relation to the said land. He had also moved an application before the Nagar Palika for the purposes of allotment of the said land which he contends was lying vacant and unused. In the application thus submitted by him for the allotment of the adjoining vacant land before the Nagar Palika on 16th August, 1986, he has also simultaneously in the application had undertaken that in an event if Nagar Palika decides to allot the land to him, he is undertaking to vacate the same whenever it is required by the Nagar Palika in future or on their demand.

5. It is the case of the applicant Mr. Naveen Chandra Joshi that the Nagar Palika had not taken any decision on the application as such on the application dated 1