The court emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal disputes, ruling that a civil matter should not be criminalized without adequate evidence or specific allegations supporting the criminal charges.

JUDGMENT

Date : 14-10-2025

Heard Ms. Shashi Priya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned APP for the State.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 in connection with Complaint Case No.260/22, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai, Samastipur under Sections 341 , 323, 379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per the allegation made in the complaint, on 29.05.2022 at about 8:00 AM, the petitioner along with other named accused persons and several unidentified individuals allegedly entered the agricultural field of the complainant situated at Village Pagra, P.S. Dalsinghsarai, District Samastipur. It is alleged that the accused persons, by using a tractor, forcibly damaged the tomato crop of the complainant. Upon protest, the accused no. 1 allegedly gave order to other accused to tie the complainant with a tractor and dragged him. Accused no. 2 (petitioner herein), allegedly on the point of pistol threatened the complainant to shoot him in case he raised any protest. It is further alleged that the accused persons caused a financial loss of approximately Rs. 50,000/- by destroying the vegetable crop, and the accused Ram Snehi Singh had snatched Rs. 1200/- from the complainant’s pocket. The complainant approached the local police who took no action, which led to the filing of an application before the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur on 22.06.2022. It is further alleged that on 23.06.2022, the accused persons had trespassed the complainant’s land, armed with weapons, and started constructing an asbestos house. Upon protest, the complainant was allegedly assaulted and abused. The petitioner Sanjeeva Kumar Singh is alleged to have encroached upon the complainant’s land by threatening him at gunpoint. It is also alleged that the accused persons have political patronage leaving no room for police action.

ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER

4. Ms. Shashi Priya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that by giving colour of criminality in the garb of dispute between the parties in respect of appointment of temporary trustee of Kali Mandir by the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, the present complaint has been lodged. The trust is governed as per the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act , 1950. The petitioner’s father, Paras Nath Singh, was appointed as the temporary trustee of Kali Mandir, located at Village Pagra, Dalsinghsarai, pursuant to the decision of the Chairman of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. Being aggrieved with the decision of the Chairman regarding appointment of the father of the petitioner as temporary trustee, the opposite party No. 2 filed C.W.J.C. No. 21312 of 2013, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2017. The said order was subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1331 of 2017, vide order dated 03.05.2018. Learned counsel submitted that out of enmity and vengeance, the complaint has been lodged though the dispute is of civil in nature and the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus.

5. The petitioner submitted that the complaint lodged against him is an attempt to criminalize out of vengeance and malafide intention. In fact the dispute arises out of the appointment of the petitioner’s father as the temporary trustee of Kali Mandir, a decision upheld by the courts in C.W.J.C. No. 21312 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 1331 of 2017.