Criminal prosecution over land title disputes based on deed validity constitutes an abuse of court process.

The petitioners challenged an order dated 26.08.2022 passed in Cr. Revision No. 63 of 2022 and a cognizance order dated 02.04.2022 arising from Complaint Case No. 256C of 2021.

The complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that the petitioners forged an exchange deed regarding a 16-decimal plot in Mauja Kalyanpur Jamui to block his entry and steal goods.

The petitioners contended the land was validly exchanged between their ancestors in 1945.

Civil proceedings, including a Section 144 Cr.P.C. action and a withdrawn title suit, had previously been initiated regarding the same property.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings for forgery and conspiracy should be quashed on the grounds that the dispute is essentially civil in nature.

2. Whether the continuance of the criminal prosecution constitutes an abuse of the process of the court.

The court applied the distinction between civil and criminal remedies, noting that criminal proceedings are improper when the desired outcome is purely civil (e.g., declaration of a deed as forged or repossession of land).

It relied on the landmark precedent of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) regarding the quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

The court cited Govind Prasad Kejriwal v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2020) to fortify the principle that purely civil disputes should not be litigated under the guise of criminal prosecution.

The court observed that the core of the dispute rests on the veracity and validity of the 1945 exchange deed, a matter where both parties present conflicting versions.

It reasoned that the complainant’s ultimate objectives—the cancellation of the deed and recovery of land—are civil remedies that cannot be granted by a criminal court, even if a conviction were secured.

Consequently, the court found that the criminal case was a misplaced attempt to resolve a property title dispute. Applying the Bhajan Lal criteria, the court determined that allowing the prosecution to continue would be futile and would result in an abuse of judicial process, as the dispute is essentially of a civil nature.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance order dated 02.04.2022 and the revisional order dated 26.08.2022 insofar as they related to the petitioners, setting aside all charges under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 256C of 2021.