Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhunda Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:14485) on 18 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:14485]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 927/2019

1.       Bhunda Ram S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Aged About 62 Years, B/c
         Seervi, R/o Bagadinagar, Tehsil Sojat, Distt. Pali
2.       Khuma Ram S/o Sh. Labu Ram, Aged About 59 Years, B/c
         Sargara, R/o Kumharo Ka Bas, Bagdi Nagar, Tehsil Sojat,
         Distt. Pali
3.       Uttam Chand Deora S/o Labu Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
         B/c Sargara, R/o Kumharo Ka Bas, Bagdi Nagar, Tehsil
         Sojat, Distt. Pali
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Smt. Kanku Devi W/o Parasmal, B/c Sargara, R/o Village
         Alawas, Sojat Road, Pali
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Rajesh Punia
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
                                  Mr. Kapil Purohit



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

18/03/2025

Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners for

quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 101/2018

registered at Police Station Bagadi, District Pali for offence under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 & 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(f),

3(1)(g), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 101/2018 came to

be registered on the basis of written report filed by complainant

respondent no.2 on 05.09.2018 stating therein that her father

Dunga Ram had purchased a plot in village Bagdinagar on

[2025:RJ-JD:14485] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-927/2019]

24.02.1968 from one Rajiya Seervi and since then, the

complainant and her family are in possession. It was alleged that

the accused, Bhunda Ram, Khuma Ram, and Uttam Chand, in

furtherance of a conspiracy, executed a sale deed on 20th July

2018. Although Khasra No. 2318 was mentioned in the sale deed,

which, in fact, does not belong to the complainant, the document

falsely indicated the neighboring land as that of the complainant.

It was alleged that the accused persons made an attempt to take

possession of the plot of complainant.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present FIR is

nothing but abuse of process of law. It is argued that the

complainant has already filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale

deed, which is pending consideration before the court of Additional

District Judge, Sojat. It is argued that the petitioner no.1 is

khatedar tenant of Khasra No.2318 and in that capacity, a

registered sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 &

3 and complainant has not suffered any loss by execution of the

sale deed. Even if there is any dispute, the same is purely of civil

nature and complainant has already filed a suit before the Civil

Court. It is also argued that the basic ingredients of alleged

offences are totally missing and therefore, no offence under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 IPC are made out. Learned

counsel vehemently argues that the complainant is misusing the

process of law as a tool to create pressure upon the petitioners for

taking undue advantage. Therefore, misc petition be allowed and

FIR may be quashed and set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent

no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that mere

[2025:RJ-JD:14485] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-927/2019]

pendency of civil litigation before Civil Court will not create a bar

for continuance of criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the

complainant submits that in a catena of judgments, it has been

held that if criminality exists, civil proceedings with regard to

same facts will not debar criminal proceeding. It is submitted that

the facts are more than sufficient to show that the petitioners

have committed the alleged offences for which, they are liable for

criminal prosecution, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable

to be quashed.

I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone

through the FIR and material on record.

The primary issue that has been raised by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners is to the effect that it is a

civil nature dispute and that the registration of criminal case is an

abuse of process of law. Invariably, in the case relating to cheating

and fraud, there is generally some element of civil nature. The

offences affecting the rights of a person in respect to his property

and more so offences such as Criminal Breach of Trust, Stolen

property, Cheating, Fraudulent Deeds and Disposition of Property,

etc. a criminal proceeding can be initiated and the accused can be

brought to justice. Similarly, in this type of cases a civil suit can

also be initiated for recovery of money, property or title dispute as

regard to the loss incurred. Regarding the facts and circumstances

of the case, the criminal proceedings may be given more

significance than the civil proceeding, however there is no hard

and fast rule regarding the same. Both civil and criminal

proceedings can be initiated by the victim simultaneously with

distinct impetus and objective.

[2025:RJ-JD:14485] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-927/2019]

The Court conscious of the interplay between civil disputes and

criminal proceedings, in this regard we find it appropriate to refer

to a decision of this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar

reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751, wherein this Court observed as

under:

"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. U (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] ) Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind."

In the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs. the State of

Karnataka & Anr. Arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO. 1570 OF 2021

decided on 12.03.2024 has observed that:

6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

This is what was held:

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a

[2025:RJ-JD:14485] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-927/2019]

criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."

(emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahar Jahan and

Ors. v. State of Delhi and Ors. reported (2004) 13 SCC 421

wherein the Court was dealing with a proceeding under Section

145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noticed that a

civil dispute was given the colour of a criminal case. As therein a

proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

was pending, when a civil suit was also pending before a

competent court of law, it was opined:

[2025:RJ-JD:14485] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-927/2019]

"It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the parties that this very property which is the subject-matter of these criminal proceedings is also the subject-matter of the civil suit pending in the civil court. The question as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, we deem it proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may remain in operation during the hearing of the civil suit.

It was furthermore observed:

"7. We have simply noted the contentions raised by the parties. The civil court, in our opinion, would be the most appropriate forum to take care of such grievances and pass such interim order as would reasonably protect the interests of both the parties. The civil court may issue an ad interim injunction, may appoint a Commissioner or Receiver or may make any other interim arrangement as to possession or user of the property which is the subject matter of proceedings in the civil court exercising the power conferred on it by Sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure."

In the instant case, the Court quashed the proceedings

under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the

matter before it was derived from civil proceedings, where the

primary issue concerned the possession of the parties over the

[2025:RJ-JD:14485] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-927/2019]

disputed property. Similarly, in the present case, the contention of

Petitioner No. 1 is that he has sold the land, of which he was the

khatedar, to Petitioners No. 2 and 3 and thus has no connection

with the land purchased by the father of the complainant. On the

other hand, the complainant (Respondent No. 2) asserts that the

petitioners have attempted to unlawfully seize the land, knowing

that it had already been sold to the father of the complainant.