Continuing Proceedings Against Accused Sans Established Criminality Is Abuse Of Process Of Law: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “Looking into the pendency of two partition suits filed by one of the co-sharer of the property, in which, the petitioners and the complainant are also parties in those partition suits, it appears that for civil wrong, criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners.”

“There is no doubt that if the criminality is made out, both criminal and civil cases can go simultaneously, however, if the criminality is not made out, to allow to continue the proceeding, will amount to abuse of process of law. This Court finds that for a civil wrong, criminal case has been instituted against the petitioners,” Justice Dwivedi added.

The ruling came in response to a petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance in a Complaint Case pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih.

The complainant, one of the daughters of one late Jagat Narayan Prasad, initially filed an FIR, leading to a police investigation that concluded the matter was civil in nature. However, the complainant proceeded with a protest complaint case, alleging fraudulent partition and sale of inherited properties by her brothers. The police had earlier submitted a final report categorizing the matter as a civil dispute.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that a partition deed dated 25.12.2004 indicated a division among the legal heirs of the grandfather, not the father of the petitioners. Emphasizing two pending partition suits involving the petitioners and the complainant as parties, the counsel contended that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the legal process.

Sudhir Sahay, representing the complainant, argued that the sale of disputed land established criminality, asserting that civil and criminal cases can proceed concurrently if criminality is established.

The State's counsel, Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, informed the court that the police had submitted a final report, and despite this, the court took cognizance against the petitioners based on the protest petition.

The Court, after considering the contents of the complaint case and noting the ongoing partition suits involving the same property, observed that the police had classified the matter as civil. Despite this, the court had taken cognizance against the petitioners on the protest petition.

In light of these facts, the Jharkhand High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance, in the Complaint Case pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, while allowing the petition.

Counsel/s For the Petitioners: Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mrs. Manjusri Patra, Advocate Mrs. Shrestha Mehta, Advocate

Counsel/s For the State: Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agarwal, S.P.P.

Counsel/s For O.P. No.2: Mr. Sudhir Sahay, Advocate

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 2939 of 2014

Case Title: Navin Kumar Sinha & Anr vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 85

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement