Allegations over compensation apportionment in special acquisition statute do not disclose cognizable offence; criminal proceedings cannot reopen settled statutory disputes; revisional FIR direction quashed under Section 482 CrPC as abuse of process. (28 words)

JUDGMENT :

ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

1. The present group of three applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of a common order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020, titled Smt. Poonam Nehra v. Rajbeer Singh and others .

2. The controversy has its genesis in proceedings relating to acquisition of rights of user in land for laying of a gas pipeline project undertaken by GAIL (India) Limited, under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

3. Notifications under the Act of 1962 were issued, acquisition proceedings were completed, and compensation was determined and disbursed in accordance with the statutory mechanism. The compensation proceedings culminated much prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings, and no challenge was raised at the relevant time before the competent authority under the Act.

4. Respondent No. 2 claimed herself to be a co tenure holder in respect of the acquired land and alleged that compensation was disbursed exclusively to Respondent No. 3, a co sharer, without granting her proportionate share.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid grievance, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, alleging collusion between officials of the acquiring authority and Respondent No. 3, and seeking directions for registration of a criminal case.

6. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the application and the material placed on record, rejected the prayer for registration of an FIR, finding that the dispute essentially pertained to compensation and did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020. By order dated 30.05.2022, the revisional court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate’s order, and directed registration of a criminal case.

8. Consequent to the revisional order, three separate applications under Section 482 CrPC came to be filed:

o C-482 No. 1082 of 2022 by one of the officers against whom proceedings were sought to be initiated.

o C-482 No. 1485 of 2022 by GAIL (India) Limited, the acquiring body.

o C-482 No. 2119 of 2022 by another individual co accused.

9. Interim protection was granted in all the three matters at different stages, and the impugned revisional order dated 30.05.2022 remained stayed during the pendency of the proceedings.

10. As the challenge in all the three applications is directed against the same revisional order and arises from an identical factual matrix, they were connected and heard together.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the impugned revisional order is a clear abuse of the criminal process, inasmuch as it permits criminal prosecution to be used as a tool for reopening and re agitating a compensation dispute governed entirely by a special statute.

12. It was argued that the Act of 1962 constitutes a complete code in itself, providing for acquisition, determination of compensation, apportionment, reference, and adjudication of disputes. Once the statutory process has been completed, criminal law cannot be invoked to bypass limitation or statutory remedies.

13. Learned coun