The High Court dismissed a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. It held that a predominate civil nature of dispute does not justify quashing as factual denials must wait for trial, citing support from examined witnesses and documents.
Application for quashing of order directing issue of process was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76088 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3257 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna
======================================================
RAVI RANJAN S/o Janardan Prasad Resident of Mohalla- Eastern Ram Krishna Nagar, P.S.- Ram Krishna Nagar, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Opposite Parties
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prabhu Narayan Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 02-12-2019 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘the Code’) has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M. VI, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3257 (c ) /2017 whereby process had been directed to be issued against the petitioner and other accused persons to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76088 of 2019(2) dt.02-12-2019 2/2
predominantly civil in nature in respect of land related transactions. In fact, the petitioner has also lodged cases against the complainant and the instant proceedings in Complaint Case No. 3257 ( c) of 2017 are false and mala fide .
The submissions, based on factual denial, for the purposes of exercise of jurisdiction U/s 482 of the Cr. P.C., cannot be examined. The complainant has been examined on oath and three witnesses have supported the case in the complaint petition. The photo copy of the documents with hand writing Expert have also been annexed with the complaint petition. The fact that the allegations are false is an issue which is yet to be determined at the trial.
Considering the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction on the application filed by the petitioner.
The application is dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shyambihari/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings initiated on an alleged land dispute basis.
Whether disputed facts regarding civil liability and the falsity of allegations can be examined at the stage of quashing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAVI RANJAN S/o Janardan Prasad
THE STATE OF BIHAR
Arun Kumar Sinha @ Arn Kumar Sinha
MADHURESH PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
