Criminal proceedings stayed where prosecution is initiated with oblique motives to exert pressure in civil land disputes.

The petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are embroiled in a long-standing land dispute regarding Khasra No. 16/25 in Village Pathrai, which has led to multiple civil and criminal litigations since 2015

Following a court appearance on 13.12.2024, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 0884/2024, alleging that the petitioners used abusive language within the court premises

A charge-sheet was subsequently filed on 10.02.2025, leading to the registration of Special Sessions Case No. 26/2025

The petitioners moved the High Court to challenge the FIR and subsequent proceedings, contending that the allegations are vague, unsubstantiated by independent witnesses, and were filed with mala fide intent to pressure them into vacating the disputed land

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under the BNS and the SC/ST Act constitute an abuse of the process of law, given they arise from a pre-existing civil land dispute.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim relief staying the proceedings of the Special Sessions Case.

The court considered the provisions of Sections 296 (Obscene acts and songs), 351(2) (Criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (Joint liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

It also examined Section 3(1)(v) [cited as 3(1)(5)] and Section 10 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The court relied on the established legal principle that criminal proceedings initiated with an oblique motive to settle civil disputes or exert undue pressure on a party are liable to be stayed or quashed as an abuse of the process of law

The Court observed that the conflict between the parties is primarily civil in nature, involving land ownership and possession currently under adjudication by a competent civil court

The Court noted that despite the alleged abuse occurring within court premises, no contemporaneous complaint was made to any judicial officer or court authority

It highlighted the pattern of multiple FIRs (three since 2015) filed by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioners regarding the same property, which suggested a mala fide intention to exert pressure rather than seek justice for a specific criminal act

Consequently, the Court found that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an "oblique measure" to gain leverage in the civil dispute

The Court held that the facts and circumstances justified interim protection to prevent the potential abuse of the legal process