Criminal prosecution cannot be weaponized to resolve civil monetary disputes or settle financial grievances through claims of aggravated assault.

The informant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that on July 13, 2019, the petitioner and others demanded ₹5 lakhs as extortion (Rangdari), fired a gun near his ear, looted ₹40,000, and fired at a wall.

The police initially filed a Final Report (No. 262/2019) stating no case was made out, but the Magistrate took cognizance anyway.

After a previous quashing order by the High Court (Cr. Misc. No. 83149 of 2019) remitted the matter, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, again passed an order of cognizance dated November 4, 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 504, 506, 307, 386 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner, a primary school teacher, argued the case was a malicious fabrication arising from a ₹30 lakh loan dispute between the informant and a co-accused.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were instituted for the purpose of settling a purely civil monetary dispute.

2. Whether the order of cognizance dated 04.11.2022 is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The court primarily applied the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736, which deprecated the growing tendency to convert purely civil or commercial disputes into criminal cases to exert pressure on creditors or lenders.

The court also exercised its inherent powers (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings when the prosecution is found to be a tool for settlement of monetary issues.

The Court examined the defense's evidence, noting that the informant had an admitted debt toward a co-accused, evidenced by a handwritten statement and an unpaid cheque of ₹10 lakhs for which payment had been stopped. The petitioner was merely a witness to the loan agreement.

The Court observed that during the police investigation, no physical evidence of the alleged firing (such as bullet marks on the wall) was found, and the witness statements relied upon were from close relatives of the informant.

The Court reasoned that the essential nature of the dispute was monetary/civil, and the allegations of aggravated assault and snatching were manufactured to bypass time-consuming civil remedies and coerce a settlement.

The Court quashed the order of cognizance dated November 4, 2022, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 359 of 2019 insofar as it related to the petitioner.