Criminal Proceedings Preponderantly Civil in Nature and Amounting to Multiplicity of Litigation Liable to be Quashed

The informant (Sanjay Kumar Gupta) filed Complaint Case No. 646 of 2019, alleging that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to fraudulently seize his properties in Ara and Kolkata by forging signatures on a compromise petition dated 12.03.2018 in Title Suit No. 177 of 2014 at Alipore Court

This led to the registration of Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 528 of 2019

Simultaneously, the informant lodged a subsequent FIR (Alipore P.S. Case No. 42 of 2022) in Kolkata on identical allegations and filed a civil miscellaneous case to set aside the compromise decree

In Cr. Misc. No. 66127/2023, the petitioner sought to quash an order granting provisional bail to the accused, alleging they suppressed their prior arrest in Kolkata and failed to comply with transit bail conditions

In Cr. Misc. No. 74606/2023, the petitioners sought quashing of the entire Bihar proceeding

1. Whether the order dated 19.07.2023 granting provisional bail to Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 warrants quashing due to alleged suppression of facts regarding transit bail compliance

2. Whether the continuation of Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 528 of 2019 constitutes an abuse of the process of law given the pendency of identical criminal and civil proceedings in Kolkata

The Court primarily exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), to prevent abuse of the process of any Court

It applied the principle that predominantly civil disputes—specifically those involving property partitions and challenges to compromise decrees—should be addressed through civil remedies rather than criminal prosecution

The Court also perused the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120B relative to forgery and cheating

Regarding the bail challenge, the Court noted that while allegations of non-compliance with transit bail existed, the primary dispute was "predominately civil in nature"

The Court reasoned that even a conviction in a criminal case would not restore property possession to the informant; such relief necessitates successful litigation of the pending civil miscellaneous proceedings in Alipore

Regarding the quashing of the Bihar FIR, the Court found it significant that the informant had lodged two separate FIRs in different states (Bihar and West Bengal) for the same cause of action

The Court observed that allowing the Bihar proceedings to continue alongside the Kolkata proceedings and the civil suit would be an "abuse of the process of the Court"

Although the property was situated in Ara, the choice to pursue multiple identical criminal litigations was deemed impermissible

The Court allowed Cr. Misc. No. 74606 of 2023, quashing the entire proceeding of Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 528 of 2019 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara

The Court held that the informant must pursue his remedies through the pending civil case and the existing criminal case in Kolkata to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and legal abuse