Retaliatory criminal proceedings over a civil property dispute constitute abuse of process.

The parties asserted competing claims over land comprising Plot Nos. 1232, 1233 and 1234 at Sareya, Gopalganj, with the dispute centring on possession, a boundary wall and a gate.

The petitioners claimed through registered sale deeds executed in 2015 by purchasers from 1983; opposite party No. 2 claimed through a separate chain of conveyances, including a purchase in 2016

After petitioner No. 1 lodged a police case concerning damage to the boundary wall, opposite party No. 2 filed the complaint at issue on 21 June 2016.

The Magistrate recorded the complainant’s solemn affirmation and examined inquiry witnesses, then took cognizance under IPC Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 384 and 427/34 on 29 September 2016

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the complaint was a retaliatory attempt to criminalise a civil property dispute

1. Whether the complaint and inquiry materials disclosed criminal offences warranting continuation of proceedings, or instead concerned a civil dispute over land, possession and boundaries

2. Whether the complaint was manifestly retaliatory or malicious, so that quashing was warranted under Section 482 CrPC

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of a court and secure the ends of justice, but the power is to be exercised sparingly

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, quashing may be appropriate, among other cases, where allegations are inherently improbable (category 5) or proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance (category 7)

The judgment also relied on authorities including 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 proceedings should not be used to pressure parties in civil disputes or as a means of private retaliation

The Court viewed the parties’ competing conveyances and the disagreement over the boundary wall and gate as the central controversy, noting that a title suit was pending between them

It found that the complaint followed shortly after petitioner No. 1’s police case and treated the timing, together with opposite party No. 2’s subsequent complaint, as evidence that the prosecution was retaliatory

On that basis, the Court concluded that continuation of the criminal case would constitute an abuse of process within the principles in Bhajan Lal

It quashed the order dated 29 September 2016 taking cognizance under IPC Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 384 and 427/34, and quashed the consequential criminal proceedings qua the petitioners.

The application was allowed