Retaliatory criminal proceedings in a civil land dispute, lacking specific allegations, constitute abuse of process.

The dispute concerned competing claims over land in Plot Nos. 1232, 1233 and 1234, including the boundary wall and access passage.

The petitioner claimed title through registered sale deeds executed in 2015 by purchasers who had acquired the land in 1983; opposite party No. 2 claimed a share acquired in 2016.

After the petitioner’s police case alleging damage to the boundary wall, opposite party No. 2 filed the complaint in question on 25 June 2016, alleging offences including assault, intimidation and extortion.

Following the complainant’s solemn affirmation and inquiry statements, the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 323, 504, 506, 387 and 120B IPC on 16 September 2016.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the complaint was retaliatory and arose from a civil property dispute.

1. Whether the complaint and inquiry materials disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences for which cognizance was taken.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, having been initiated maliciously as a counterblast to the petitioner’s police case in a dispute essentially concerning land and boundaries.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed, among other cases, where the allegations—even accepted in full—do not disclose an offence, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

The Court also relied on Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Ankul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. Harihar Singh for the principles that criminal process should not be used to pressure parties in civil disputes or as a tool of private vendetta, and that retaliatory proceedings may constitute abuse of process.

The Court found that the parties’ competing claims, the boundary wall and the passage were central to the dispute, and that a civil title suit was pending.

It noted that opposite party No. 2 filed the complaint the day after the petitioner’s police case and while in custody in connection with that case.

On examining the complaint and inquiry statements, the Court concluded that they contained no specific allegation of an overt act by the petitioner.

In those circumstances, it treated the prosecution as retaliatory and held that the allegations and materials did not justify continuation of the criminal process against him, bringing the case within the Bhajan Lal categories concerning absence of a prima facie offence and mala fide proceedings.

It quashed the order dated 16 September 2016 and all criminal proceedings arising from Complaint Case No. 4300 of 2016, qua the petitioner, and allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC.