Criminal proceedings cannot continue where a civil dispute is maliciously given a criminal colour.

The informant, Murari Kumar Mishra, alleged that the petitioners, Digambar Mishra and his son Amit Kumar Mishra, forcibly occupied and locked a room in a jointly possessed residential property, abused and threatened him, displaced his articles, and thereby caused him financial loss.

On these allegations, Bhairav Sthan P.S. Case No. 89 of 2016 was registered, and the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 384, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 25 April 2018.

The petitioners relied upon earlier civil litigation concerning the property. An eviction suit filed against petitioner no. 1 was dismissed, and the dismissal was affirmed in appeal and in Second Appeal No. 544 of 2011 before the High Court.

The petitioners contended that the present prosecution was a retaliatory counterblast to Bhairav Sthan P.S. Case No. 88 of 2016, lodged earlier by petitioner no. 1 against the informant’s side.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted in their entirety, disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 384, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners?

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the background of concluded civil litigation concerning possession and title to the property, amounted to an abuse of the process of court warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

The Court applied Section 383 IPC, which defines extortion as intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property, valuable security, or a signed or sealed instrument; Section 384 IPC penalises extortion.

It also considered the requirements of intentional insult under Section 504 IPC and criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court relied on the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations do not constitute an offence or where proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

The Court further relied on M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and Joseph Salvaraja A. v. State of Gujarat, which caution against using criminal prosecution to exert pressure in disputes that are essentially civil in nature.

The decisions in Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 14 SCC 626, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 14 SCC 572, and R. Nagendar Yadav v. State of Telangana, (2023) 2 SCC 195, were cited for the principles that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained where the essential ingredients of the offence are absent or where a civil dispute has been given a criminal colour.

The Court treated the concluded civil litigation as significant because the petitioners’ possession and the alleged landlord–tenant relationship had already been adjudicated in their favour.

It found that the present FIR was lodged after the earlier civil proceedings had culminated and after petitioner no. 1 had lodged a prior criminal case against the informant’s side, supporting the petitioners’ contention that the prosecution was retaliatory.

The allegations did not, in the Court’s assessment, establish the essential elements of extortion, namely dishonest inducement to deliver property or valuable security; nor did they sufficiently disclose intentional insult, criminal intimidation, or any other offence warranting continuation of the prosecution.

Applying the Bhajan Lal categories and the principle that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal proceedings for harassment or pressure, the Court held that the prosecution was an abuse of the process of court.

It held that the allegations, viewed in the context of the prior civil litigation and the surrounding circumstances, did not disclose the prima facie ingredients of the offences for which cognizance had been taken, and that the prosecution was manifestly an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the order dated 25 April 2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhanjharpur, in Bhairav Sthan P.S. Case No. 89 of 2016, G.R. No. 1505 of 2016, was quashed, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were terminated.