Criminal Prosecution for Predominantly Civil Disputes Over Land Title Amounts to Abuse of Judicial Process

The petitioner sought quashing of an order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Munger, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 423/34 of the IPC.

The Opposite Party No. 2 (complainant) alleged that the petitioner forged documents to claim he was the adopted son of Brijnandan Singh to mutate land in his name.

Notably, a Title Suit (No. 252 of 2017) challenging the adoption deed was already pending in civil court.

The petitioner produced various documents, including an adoption deed, educational certificates, and revenue receipts, to assert his status and title.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature.

2. Whether a prima facie case for forgery or cheating was established when the Magistrate declined to take cognizance under Sections 420, 467, or 471 of the IPC.

The court relied on the principle that criminal prosecution should not be permitted where a dispute is predominantly civil, as it constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

Md. Ibrahim Ors. v. State of Bihar Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. Ors. (2006) 6 SCC 736.

Urmila Devi v. Balram Anr. (2025 INSC 915) regarding the misuse of complaint cases as circuitous tools.

Rakhi Mishra v. State of Bihar Ors. (2017) 4 PLJR 21 (SC), which states that at the cognizance stage, the Magistrate need only find a prima facie case and not consider the defense version.

The court observed that although the complaint alleged forgery and cheating, the Magistrate did not take cognizance under those sections (e.g., 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC), implying that no prima facie case for forgery was found.

Since the complainant did not challenge this omission, the finding attained finality.

The court reasoned that the core of the dispute—the validity of the adoption and subsequent land ownership—was the subject of a pending Title Suit.

It found that the allegations of "pushing and shoving" were insufficient to constitute criminal offences and were merely "arm-twisting tactics" to harass the petitioner in a civil matter.

Consequently, allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

The application was allowed, and the cognizance order dated 02.02.2021 in Complaint Case No. 662 of 2020 was quashed.