Criminal prosecution for land disputes between coparceners pending civil adjudication is an abuse of process.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned CJM, Gopalganj, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 419, 323, and 504 of the IPC in Complaint Case No. 3727/2016.

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that Petitioner No. 1 and 2 executed a sale deed for ancestral land by falsely representing Petitioner No. 1 as the daughter of one Uday Narayan Singh, whereas she is actually the daughter of the complainant.

It was further alleged that when confronted, the petitioners assaulted the complainant and snatched his property.

Notably, a civil partition suit (Partition Suit No. 309/2013) involving the same parties and property was already pending before the Court of the learned Sub-Judge-XI, Gopalganj, at the time the complaint was filed.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings were instituted with an oblique motive to settle a pre-existing civil land dispute.

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint petition prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offences charged under Sections 419, 323, and 504 of the IPC.

The court relied on the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which establishes that criminal proceedings may be quashed if the allegations are so improbable that no prudent person could reach a sufficient ground for proceeding, or if the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to a private grudge.

It further applied Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), which mandates that courts must exercise caution when a matter is essentially civil in nature and ensures that criminal procedure is not used as a pressure tactic to settle civil claims.

The court observed that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil land dispute regarding coparcenary property, for which Title Suit No. 309/2013 had been pending since 2013—three years prior to the filing of the criminal complaint.

The court noted that the summoning order was passed mechanically without considering that the petitioners were co-sharers in the property.

Applying the Bhajan Lal and Rikhab Birani principles, the court reasoned that the criminal prosecution was "un-occasioned and unwarranted," having been filed with an "oblique motive" to exert pressure on the petitioners regarding the ongoing civil litigation.

The court allowed the application and quashed the order of cognizance dated 22.11.2017 and all consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3727/2016.

The Trial Court Records were ordered to be returned to the concerned Magistrate.