Criminal Law Machinery Cannot Be Permitted for Settling Civil Disputes or Wreaking Personal Vengeance

The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that the accused persons conspired and hurled bombs at his house, causing severe damage.

Initially, the police submitted a final form finding the allegations untrue.

The petitioner filed a protest petition, which was converted into Complaint Case No. 1724 of 2011.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) dismissed the complaint, noting that the petitioner was a tenant of the accused and had been evicted through due process of law shortly before the FIR was lodged.

The petitioner’s revision application (No. 155 of 2014) against the dismissal was rejected by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran.

Whether the dismissal of the complaint and the subsequent revision application was legally sustainable.

Whether the criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intent to settle a personal/civil grudge.

The court applied the principles governing the quashing of malicious proceedings as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which allows for the quashing of proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private or personal grudges.

It further relied on the recent reiteration of this law in Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2025 INSC 1153), which held that the machinery of criminal law cannot be misused to settle civil disputes.

The Court observed that the police investigation, which included witness statements and site inspections, found no evidence of the alleged bombing or arson.

The Court highlighted the vital context that the accused had successfully obtained an eviction decree against the petitioner.

While the petitioner claimed neighbors doused the fire, investigation revealed no such support.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s use of standardized witness statements in the complaint was an attempt to give a criminal color to a civil dispute following his eviction.

Applying the Bhajan Lal ratio, the Court determined that the complaint was "manifestly attended with mala fide" and maliciously instituted to settle personal scores arising from the landlord-tenant dispute.

The High Court held that the criminal court was being used as a platform for settling a dispute that was essentially civil in nature. Consequently, the application was dismissed.