Criminal prosecution arising from a civil land dispute was quashed as mala fide abuse of process.

The informant alleged that Petitioners 1 and 2 represented themselves as bona fide owners in possession of land situated at Mauza Fakirna and sold 15 dhurs and 4 kanma of land to him and his two brothers through a registered sale deed dated 7 November 2014. When the informant attempted mutation and possession, the petitioners’ relatives allegedly objected. The informant thereafter demanded return of ₹7,50,000, but neither mutation was effected nor the money refunded.

On the basis of the informant’s written report dated 18 May 2015, Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 102 of 2015 was registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted.

The A.C.J.M., Biraul rejected the petitioners’ application under Section 239 CrPC and framed charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC by order dated 28 March 2018. The petitioners’ revision under Sections 397 and 399 CrPC was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, on 8 October 2018.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of both orders and the consequential criminal proceedings, contending that the dispute was essentially civil and that a money suit, Suit No. 02 of 2015, was already pending between the parties.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to examine and quash the revisional court’s order and the consequential criminal proceedings despite dismissal of the revision under Sections 397 and 399 CrPC?

2. Whether the allegations arising from the land-sale transaction disclosed criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, or whether the prosecution was essentially a civil dispute instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners?

The Court considered the discharge jurisdiction under Section 239 CrPC, the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 399 CrPC, and the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, (2005) 2 SCC 571, regarding the maintainability of proceedings invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction against a revisional order.

The Court applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly category 7, under which criminal proceedings may be quashed when manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.

It also relied on Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, which emphasises that criminal process cannot be used to exert pressure in matters essentially civil in nature and that courts must scrutinise whether the complaint or charge-sheet discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offences before permitting criminal proceedings to continue.

The substantive charges considered were under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, relating respectively to criminal breach of trust and cheating.

The Court treated the dispute as arising principally from a land-sale transaction and noted that the informant had already instituted a money suit concerning the same subject matter.

Although the allegations concerned non-mutation, obstruction to possession and non-refund of the consideration, the Court found that the dispute was predominantly civil and that the criminal prosecution appeared to have been initiated out of personal vengeance and an oblique motive to harass the petitioners.

Applying the principles in Rikhab Birani and category 7 of Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would amount to misuse of criminal process, particularly when an efficacious civil remedy was already being pursued.

The Court therefore found sufficient grounds to interfere with the orders rejecting discharge and dismissing the revision.

It accordingly quashed the order dated 8 October 2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2018, the order dated 28 March 2018 passed by the A.C.J.M., Biraul, and all consequential criminal proceedings arising from Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 102 of 2015, insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

The petition was allowed, and the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court along with the trial court record, if any.