Criminal complaints cannot settle civil land disputes absent perversity in the revisional order.

The petitioner instituted Complaint Case No. 3083 of 2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite parties.

He alleged that the accused had fraudulently created forged documents and obtained possession of land belonging to him.

The complainant and enquiry witnesses were examined and documents were produced before the Magistrate.

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, holding, in substance, that the dispute was civil in nature.

The petitioner’s criminal revision against that order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Siwan, by order dated 22 December 2018, principally on the basis that the materials showed a dispute concerning ownership, sale and possession of land.

The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court seeking quashing of both orders.

Whether the High Court could interfere with the revisional order in exercise of its quashing/inherent jurisdiction where such interference might otherwise amount to a second criminal revision barred by Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the Magistrate and Revisional Court acted illegally or perversely in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the allegations essentially concerned a civil land dispute.

Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits dismissal of a complaint where, after considering the complainant’s statement, the statements of witnesses on oath and the result of the enquiry or investigation, the Magistrate finds no sufficient ground for proceeding.

Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second criminal revision by the same person; however, the High Court may exercise its quashing/inherent jurisdiction in an exceptional case where the revisional order is perverse.

The Court relied on Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571, for the principle that a quashing petition may be maintainable against a revisional order where the order warrants categorisation as “perverse”.

The Court also applied the principle that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle disputes which are essentially civil, proprietary or possessory in character.

The High Court examined the reasoning of the Revisional Court and the statements recorded during the complaint enquiry.

The complainant and the enquiry witnesses consistently indicated that the disputed land had been sold or purchased by the accused parties and that the accused were in possession; the allegations principally concerned the validity of the sale transaction, alleged forgery in alienating the land, and competing claims to ownership or share in the property.

On that material, the High Court held that the Revisional Court’s conclusion that the dispute was fundamentally civil was legally supportable and not perverse.

Consequently, although the High Court recognised that exceptional interference with a revisional order could be possible under the principle stated in Kailash Verma, it found no exceptional circumstance warranting such intervention in the present case.

It held that the Revisional Court’s order was reasoned and within the legal framework, and that the complaint was an unwarranted attempt to resolve an essentially civil land dispute through criminal proceedings.

The petition seeking quashing of the order dated 22 December 2018 and the Magistrate’s order dismissing Complaint Case No. 3083 of 2015 was dismissed as devoid of merit.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court along with the lower-court record, if any.