A reasoned Section 203 CrPC dismissal warrants no quashing where allegations disclose a civil property dispute.

The petitioner, Baby Devi, alleged that she was the only child and legal heir of late Ram Chandra Prasad Gupta and had inherited his properties.

The petitioner specifically alleged that her signature was forged and that an impersonator represented herself as the petitioner in Mutation Case No. 1217 of 2012, resulting in the Circle Officer’s order dated 26 January 2012.

The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), by order dated 21 June 2013.

The petitioner’s criminal revision, Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2013, was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jehanabad, on 21 August 2014.

Whether the Magistrate’s dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was liable to be quashed where the petitioner alleged forgery, impersonation and collusion in a mutation proceeding?

Whether the High Court could entertain the petitioner’s quashing application after dismissal of her criminal revision, particularly when the application was alleged to amount to a second revision barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Section 203 Cr.P.C., under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint after considering the complainant’s statement and the result of the inquiry or investigation if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.

The Court also considered the restriction under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C., which bars a second revision by the same person before the High Court or another court after disposal of a revision petition.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that interference with a reasoned order dismissing a complaint is unwarranted in the absence of a prima facie case or demonstrable legal infirmity.

The High Court noted that the petitioner had supported her allegations on oath and relied upon inquiry witnesses concerning the alleged forgery and impersonation.

However, it accepted the respondents’ submission that the Magistrate had passed a reasoned order finding no prima facie case and that the dispute appeared predominantly civil in nature.

The Court also took into account that the dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. had already been affirmed by the Sessions Court in revision.

In these circumstances, the High Court found no sufficient ground to interfere and treated the petitioner’s challenge as impermissibly approaching a second revision, having regard to Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

Finding no merit in the quashing petition, the Court dismissed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19330 of 2019.

The trial court record, if any, was directed to be returned along with a copy of the judgment.