Criminal proceedings were quashed where a civil property dispute was maliciously given a criminal colour.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the order dated 3 August 2024 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 427, 504, 506 and 34 IPC in Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 679 of 2022.

The informant alleged that the petitioners, who were his close relatives, interfered with his possession of disputed land, demolished part of a house, attempted construction, abused and assaulted his brother, and subsequently attempted encroachment on 6 December 2022.

The petitioners contended that the prosecution arose out of a family property dispute concerning approximately one katha of land and an alleged gift deed, and that the civil dispute had been given a criminal colour.

A Division Bench had earlier held that the competing claims concerning title, construction and access were matters for adjudication before the appropriate civil forum.

The State and the informant opposed quashing, arguing that the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed a prima facie case and that the availability of civil remedies did not bar criminal proceedings.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order taking cognizance where the prosecution allegedly arose from a civil property dispute and was instituted with mala fide intent?

Whether the allegations and materials in the FIR and charge-sheet disclosed a genuine prima facie criminal case, or whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law?

Whether the repeated registration of FIRs against the petitioners and their family members constituted a relevant attending circumstance demonstrating harassment and abuse of criminal process?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice.

It recognised that the existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution where the allegations independently disclose criminal offences; however, criminal proceedings may be quashed where a purely civil dispute is given a criminal colour or where the prosecution is manifestly mala fide.

Relying on Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 219, the Court held that, in an alleged vexatious prosecution, it may examine the FIR together with the surrounding circumstances and materials collected during investigation, including multiple FIRs.

It relied on Ankul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, for the principle that Section 482 jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly but should be invoked where continuation of proceedings would abuse the process of law or where a civil dispute has been artificially converted into a criminal case.

The Court also referred to T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, concerning the impermissibility of successive FIRs arising from the same transaction, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly the category of proceedings instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

The principles in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, were also noted regarding misuse of criminal proceedings for civil disputes and the requirement of judicial application of mind before summoning an accused.

The Court found that the dispute was fundamentally between family members concerning title, possession, construction and access to immovable property.

The earlier Division Bench order had expressly characterised the competing claims as matters requiring adjudication before a civil forum, where evidence regarding title and identification of the property could be led and tested.

Against this background, the informant’s failure to pursue the appropriate civil remedy, coupled with the registration of the present FIR shortly after institution of the writ proceedings and the filing of five further FIRs in 2023 against the petitioners and their relatives, was treated as a significant attending circumstance.

The Court concluded that the repeated criminal cases indicated an attempt to exert pressure and compel the petitioners to abandon their property claims.

Thus, notwithstanding the formal allegation of offences under the IPC, the prosecution was found to be a civil dispute dressed in criminal form and motivated by malice, attracting the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Accordingly, the order dated 3 August 2024 taking cognizance in Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 679 of 2022 was set aside, and the Section 482 CrPC application was allowed.