Criminal proceedings in a predominantly civil land dispute were quashed following settlement.

The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 4 July 2013 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna took cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1585(C) of 2013 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The complainant alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused, acting in concert, induced him to purchase one katha of land at Fajilabad, Patna by representing that the property was free from encumbrances.

On the basis of these representations, Rs. 2,65,000 was paid during May–July 2010, and the petitioner executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant’s wife, with the other accused acting as identifier and witness.

The alleged fraud came to light in 2013 when the complainant’s mutation application was rejected.

It was then discovered that the original owner had cancelled the petitioner’s power of attorney on 12 December 2008 and had already sold the land to another person.

The petitioner contended that the dispute arose from agreements for sale and was essentially civil in nature.

He further submitted that the parties had compromised and that the complainant had received Rs. 3,00,000 from co-accused Raju Singh.

Despite service of notice, the complainant did not appear before the High Court.

Whether the order dated 4 July 2013 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 504/34 IPC was liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, in view of the essentially civil nature of the dispute and the subsequent compromise between the parties, would amount to an abuse of the process of court?

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC.

It applied the principle governing the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and the parties have settled the matter.

The Court also relied upon Rikhab Birani and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, cited for the applicable principles concerning quashing of criminal proceedings in disputes having a civil character and arising from settlement.

The Court found that the allegations arose out of transactions concerning agreements for sale, execution of a sale deed, title to the property, and repayment of the sale consideration—matters that were primarily civil in character.

The petitioner also placed on record the surrender-cum-bail order recording the subsequent settlement, under which the complainant had received Rs. 3,00,000 from co-accused Raju Singh against the amount paid pursuant to the agreement to sell.

Since the complainant did not contest the quashing petition despite service and the dispute had been compromised, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would serve no legitimate purpose and would constitute an abuse of the process of court.

It held that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature, had been compromised, and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the order dated 4 July 2013 taking cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1585(C) of 2013 was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner, along with all consequential proceedings.

The application was allowed, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court with the lower-court record, if any.