Patna High Court
Barun Kumar Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 8 August, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31712 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- Tilkamanjhi District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Barun Kumar Choudhary S/O Late Dr. Chhedi Choudhary R/O
Village/Mohalla- House No.12, Sinha Library Road, P.S- Kotwali,
District- Patna.
2. Raj Kamal Choudhary S/O Late Dr. Chhedi Choudhary R/O
Village/Mohalla- House No.12, Sinha Library Road, P.S- Kotwali,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kamal Mohan Thakur S/O Late Suresh Mohan Thakur R/O Anandgarh
Palace, Surya Mohan Thakur Path, P.S- Tilkamanjhi, Distt.-
Bhagalpur.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31997 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- Tilkamanjhi District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Sunil Kumar Kedia S/o Late Gopi Krishna Kedia Resident of Mohalla
- MPD Road, P.S- Kotwali, Distt.- Bhagalpur
2. Ashok Sharma S/o Sri Krishnadeo Chaudhory R/o 53, Balram Day
Street, P.s. - Girish Pork, Kolkata, Distt.- Kolkata, W.B
3. Rajesh Kumar Santhalia S/o Vijay Kumar Santhalia R/o Gandhinagar,
P.S.- Kahalgaon, Distt.- Bhagalpur
4. Sarthak Santhalia S/o Manoj Kumar Santhalia R/o Chaudhary Tola,
ward no. 12, near Ranisati Mandir, Kahalgaon, P.s.- Kahalgaon, Distt.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kamal Mohan Thakur S/o Late Suresh Mohan Thakur R/o Anandgarh
Palace, Surya Mohan Thakur Path, P.S.- Tilakmanjhi, Distt.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31712 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Ms.Alka Panday, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31997 of 2025)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
2/16
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Ms.Kumari Pallavi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP
Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 08-08-2025
Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 31712/2025,
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 31997/2025, and learned A.P.P.
for the State duly assisted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. At the outset, it would be apposite to mention that
both these quashing petitions preferred under section 482 of
the Cr.P.C./528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to quash the same FIR
i.e. Tilkamanji P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025
registered for the offences punishable under sections 329(3),
316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 (in short, the 'B.N.S.'), pending in the court of learned
C.J.M., Bhagalpur.
3. Accordingly, both petitions are being taken together
for disposal through this common judgment.
4. Brief case of the prosecution speaks through
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
3/16
written information dated 02.04.2025 given by
informant/O.P. No. 2 that on 23.02.2025, when he returned
from Kolkata at 8:30 A.M., and while going through Central
Jail Road, he saw that one hut was constructed over his land
by encroachment made by "land mafias". On his protest, the
hut, which was constructed over there was removed, but was
disclosed by the occupants that said hut was made on the
instruction of petitioners namely, Sunil Kedia, Ashok Sharma,
Rajesh Kumar Santhalia and Arthak Santhalia.
5. It is further alleged thereof that the accused/
petitioners sold his land for Crores to some persons in
conspiracy. It is also alleged that the petitioners were also
involved in the aforesaid conspiracy and was trying to sell his
land by taking forceful possession over the same. It is alleged
that he got knowledge in the year 2017 that some persons
had sold his land to manorama Devi by making a forged
signature of his father on 01.05.1965, whereafter the land in
issue was mutated in the name of the petitioners being heirs
of late Manorama Devi. Knowing the fact, the informant filed
one Title Suit No. 362/2017, which is pending before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
4/16
court of learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur. It is also stated
that forensic examination of the original registered document
is pending, and, thereafter, the present FIR was lodged to
take appropriate legal action against the petitioners.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were
implicated falsely in the present case due to malice and
malafide intention. It is submitted that the FIR itself disclosed
civil dispute between the parties arising out of land dispute,
which is founded upon the alleged false signature of the father
of the informant, on the basis of which the land in issue was
transferred in the name of one late Manorama Devi, whom
the accused/petitioners are claiming as her legal heirs. It is
also evident from the FIR that the informant already filed a
civil suit, being Title Suit No. 362/2017, which is pending in
the court of learned Sub-Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur.
7. It is also submitted by Mr. Kishore that the petition
under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
restraining the parties from alienation of suit property, was
passed on 16.03.2024 by the learned Sub-Judge-VIII,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
5/16
Bhagalpur on the application filed by the O.P. No. 2, which
was set-aside by the learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge- 1st, Bhagalpur vide judgment dated 07.01.2025
passed in Misc. Appeal No. 15/2024 filed by the petitioners,
suggesting the balance of dispute in favour of petitioners.
8. It is pointed out by Mr. Lalit Kishore, that after
passing the judgment dated 07.01.2025 in M.A. Case No.
15/2024, whereby the restraining order passed in Title Suit
No. 362/2017 was revoked, the O.P. No. 2 lodged the present
FIR making false and concocted allegations with the motto to
convert the civil litigation into a criminal prosecution.
9. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, the date
of the occurrence is 23.03.2025, whereas the same was
lodged on 02.04.2025, which further suggests a false
implication being an afterthought. It is also submitted that the
aforesaid allegation is not specific against any of the
petitioners.
10. Traveling further, it is pointed out by Mr. Lalit
Kishore that the informant/O.P. No. 2 earlier filed a complaint
case being Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 against petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
6/16
no. 1 and his other relatives for the offences punishable under
sections 467, 468 and 420 of the I.P.C., which was dismissed
by Sri Rahul Dutta, learned Judicial Magistrate - 1 st Class,
Bhagalpur vide order dated 18.10.2023 under section 203 of
the Cr.P.C. after enquiry. A copy of which is enclosed herewith
as Annexure 'P/3', where after almost with the same set of
allegations regarding the property in question, the present FIR
was lodged.
11. In this context, it is also submitted that against
the aforesaid dismissal of the complaint case, one Criminal
Revision No. 152/2023 was preferred by the informant/O.P.
No. 2 (Annexure 'P/4'), which was also dismissed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Bhagalpur through
order dated 13.09.2024.
12. It is pointed out that in the aforesaid background,
no case, as alleged, is made out against the petitioners. It is
submitted that petitioner no. 1 has lived in Mauritius since
year 1999, having a residence permit issued by the
competent officer of the country of Mauritius on 06.01.1999
(Annexure 'P/5'), and therefore, his involvement with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
7/16
crime in question does not appear justified.
13. In view of aforesaid factual background, learned
senior counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as available through Usha Chakraborty v.
State of West Bengal [2023 SCC Online SC 90] and
Rikhab Birani and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823. In Rikhab
Birani case (supra), what the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20, which reads as under:
"19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a
great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the
matter is essentially of civil nature. The prevalent impression
that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately
protect the interests of creditors or lenders should be
discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be
used to apply pressure. Failure to do so results in the
breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and
abuse of the legal process.
20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal
proceedings initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court
was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered
wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the
jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints,
camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are
pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and
should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to
a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited v. K.M. Johny
[(2011) 13 SCC 412], which held that courts should be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
8/16
watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs,
though there can be situations where the allegation may
constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to
be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the
Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of
setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate
is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be
adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into
motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the
evidence on record and may even put questions to the
complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find
out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has
to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses an
offence and when there is material that supports and
constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The
summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter
of course."
14. It is submitted by Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/O.P. No. 2 that
the petitioners concealed before the court while praying for
"No Coercive", which was granted in terms of the order dated
27.05.2025
by one of the learned coordinate Bench of this
Court, that Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 and Cr. Revision
No. 152/2023, were both set-aside by this Court through Cr.
Misc. No. 24939 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025, for the reason
that while recording the order of dismissal, learned Magistrate
exceeded its jurisdiction and appreciated the fact instead of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
9/16
finding a prima facie case, which may adversely affect the
right of informant/O.P. No. 2 during pending civil suit, where
the core issue to decide the genuineness of signature of father
of the informant. It is submitted that the original sale deed is
with the petitioners, and if they have clean hands, then, they
must produce the original certificate before the court for
examination of its genuineness qua signature of his father,
who said to execute the alleged sale deed in favour of the late
Manorama Devi. It is pointed out that the land in issue is
located in the prime location of the district of Bhagalpur and in
due course of time, it becomes costly, and, thereafter, the
petitioners, under conspiracy, by creating a forged signature
of the father of the informant, as he usually lived outside
Bhagalpur, firstly created a sale deed in favour of the mother
and thereafter claimed the land as her legal heirs.
15. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2/informant categorically submitted that the factual allegation
of this case, as raised through the present FIR, prima facie
made out a cognizable offence and the same is not falls under
any of the parameters as available under paragraph 102 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
10/16
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Supp (1) SCC
335], hence, the present petition for quashing of FIR is fit to
be set aside/quashed.
16. It is submitted that this is not a case where a
criminal allegation was raised for the first time in the year
2025, admittedly, the complaint case was lodged in 2022. It
is also submitted that the pending civil suit does not bar the
criminal case, if occasion so arises, as such. In support of his
submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Devendra and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in
(2009) 7 SCC 495 and S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. Vs.
The State of Karnataka and Anr. [2025 SCC Online SC
1575].
17. It would be apposite to reproduce the FIR being
Tilkamanjhi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 dated 02.04.2025,
which reads as under for ready reference:
lsok esa]
Fkkuk/;{k]
frydkekW>h Fkkuk]
Hkkxyiqj
fo’k;% QthZ nLr[kr dj dsokyk djk voS/kkfud :i ls dqNyksxksa }kjk esjh iSr`d laifRr dCtk ,oa fcdzh djus ds laca/k esaA
Jheku~
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
11/16eSa dey eksgu Bkdqj] mez&62 o’kZ] firk&Lo0 lqj”s k eksgu Bkdqj] lk0&
vkuanx< iSysl] lw;Zeksgu Bkdqj iFk] Fkkuk&frydkeka>h] Hkkxyiqj 812001 dk Lfkk;h fuoklh
gwWA esjs nknk Lo0 lw;Zeksgu Bkdqj us eksgYyk& tokjhiqj esa ,d Hkw[kaM ftldk jdok 0-2940
gs0 gS tks fd djhc 44 dV~Bk tehu gS vkSj ftldh pkSgn~nh mRrj&lsUVªy tsy jksM]
nf{k.k&xyh] iwjc&xyh if”pe &ljdkjh lM+d gS] dks y[kh izlkn <u<kfu;kW ls fnukad
2@05@1947 dks jftLVªh }kjk [kjhnhA orZeku esa fLFkr egsUnzk “kks:e ds lkeus fLFkr bl
tehu dks yhph cxku ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS vkSj bl ij gekjs ifjokj dk ekfydkuk gd
vkSj n[ky vkt rd pyk vk jgk gSA
fnukad 23@03@2025 dks tc eSa dydRrk ls okil vk;k rks lqcg djhc 8%30
cts Jh fefFkys”k dqekj ds lkFk lsU Vªy tsy jksM ls xqtjrs oDr ns[kk fd if”pe dksuk esa esjs
bl tehu ij vfrdze.k dj ,d >ksiM+h cuk fy;k x;k gSA iwNrkN djus ij irk pyk
fd ;g dqN HkwekfQ;kvksa }kjk jkrksa jkr cuok;k x;k gSA eSausa tehu ij tkdj bldk fojks/k
fd;k rks >ksiM+h cukus okys us dgk fd ,slk mlus lquhy dsfM;k] v”kksd “kekZ] jkts”k dqekj
laFkkfy;k vkSj lkFkZd laFkkfy;k ds dgus ij fd;k gSA esjs fojks/k djus ij >ksiM+h cukus okys
us >ksiM+h gVk nh ftldk fd eSusa QksVks [khap fy;k rFkk fofM;ksxzkQh dj fy;kA bl ?kVuk
dks dbZ vU; yksxksa us Hkh ns[kkA
lkFk gh ;g irk pyk fd Hkkxyiqj “kgj ds ;s Hkw&ekfQ;k feydj lkft”k iwoZd
mijksDr of.kZr Hkw[kaM dks tcnZLrh n[ky dj Hkkxyiqj ds vU; yksxksa ds gkFk lkft”k dj
djksM+ks :i;s esa csp fn;k gSA bl dkaM esa “kkfey Hkw&ekfQ;k dk fooj.k fuEufyf[kr gS&
1- lquhy dqekj dsfM;k] firk&Lo0 xksih d`’.k dsfM;k] fuoklh&,e0ih0Mh0 jksM]
Fkkuk&dksrokyh] ftyk&HkkxyiqjA
2- v”kksd “kekZ firk&Jh d`’.knso pkS/kjh] fuoklh&53] cyjke Ms LVªhV]
dksydkrk&6
3- jkts”k dqekj laFkkfy;k] firk&fot; dqekj laFkkfy;k] fuoklh&xkW/kh uxj]
Fkkuk&dgyxkWo] ftyk&Hkkxyiqj
4- lkFkZd laFkkfy;k] firk&Jh eukst dqekj laFkkfy;k] fuoklh&pkS/kjh Vksyk] okMZ
ua0&12] utnhd jkfu lrh eafnj] dgyxkWo] ftyk&HkkxyiqjA
eq>s ;g Hkh irk pyk gS fd mijksDr ukfer pkjksa O;fDr ds lkFk iVuk fuoklh
jktdey pkS/kjh] o:.k dqekj pkS/kjh] nksuksa firk&MkWDVj Nsnh pkS/kjh] flUgk ykbczsjh jksM]
Fkkuk dksrokyh] iVuk ,oa muds lg;ksxh bl lkft”k esa “kkfey gSa vkSj esjs bl tehu dks
tkyh nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij vU; yksxksa dks csp dj djksM+ksa :i;s cktkj ls mBk pqds gSa
vkSj vc tcju n[ky dj bldk jftLVªh djuk pkg jgs gSAa
o’kZ 2017 esa gesa irk pyk Fkk fd fdlh tkylkt us ;g Hkw[kaM iVuk ds ,d
MkWDVj ls lkft”k dj esjs firk dk tkyh nLr[kr dj Jhefr euksjek nsoh] ifr&MkWDVj
Nsnh pkS/kjh] flUgk ykbczsjh jksM dks 1@05@1965 dks jftLVªh dj fn;k gS vkSj bl
tkyh jftLVªh ds vk/kkj ij Jhefr euksjek nsoh ¼vc LoxhZ;½ ds okfjlku&1- v:.k dqekj
pkS/kjh ¼vc LoxhZ;½ 2-o:.k dqekj pkS/kjh ,oa 3- jktdey pkS/kjh rhuksa iq= &Lo0 MkWDVj
Nsnh pkS/kjh us vius uke ls tkyh nLrkost izLrqr dj nkf[ky [kkfjt o’kZ 2017 esa MkWDVj
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
12/16Nsnh pkS/kjh us vius uke ls tkyh nLrkost izLrqr dj nkf[ky [kkfjt o’kZ 2017 esa djk
fy;kA
irk pyrs gh geyksxksa us ,d Title suit eqdnek la0 362@2017 lc tt&8
Hkkxyiqj ds ;gkW nk;j dj fn;k tks fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk ds vkns”k ij fnu
izfrfnu ds fglkc ls py jgk gSA mHk; i{k dks rFkkdfFkr jftLVªh dk ewy nLrkost
nkf[ky djus ds vkns”k ikfjr gksus ds ckotwn os tkucw> dj ;g tkyh nLrkost
U;k;ky; ds voyksdu ds fy, tek ugha dj jgs gSAa
mDr tkyh jftLVªh dh Nk;kizfr ¼9 i`’B½ Jheku~ ds voyksdu ds fy, izLrqr
dj ldrk gwWA lkFk gh esjs Lo0 firk ds Passport dh Hkh Nk;kizfr izLrqr dj ldrk
gWwA ftlds voyksdu ls Li’V gks tk,xk fd bl jftLVªh ds dkxt ij esjs firk dk
tkyh nLr[kr gSA lkFk esa jftLVªh dh Nk;kizfr i`’B 1&8 ij fd;s x;s esjs firk dk
gLrk{kj fd;k x;k gS og fcYdqy fHkUu gSA lkFk gh esjs firk jftLVªh ds fy;s dHkh
jftLVªh dk;kZy; ugha tkrs Fks] cfYd ?kj ij gh deh”ku djok dj jftLVªh djrs FksA gj
jftLVªh ij muds fdlh LvkQ ds xokg ds :i esa uke ,oa gLrk{kj jgrk Fkk vkSj esjs
firk ges”kk vaxzsth Hkk’kk esa nLrkost cuokrs FksA
vr% Jheku~ ls izkFkZuk gS fd bu tkylktksa ls tkyh jftLVªh dk ewy nLrkost
tIr dj mldk Forensic Examination djk;sa rkfd esjs ikfjokfjd tehu ij gekjk
ekfydkuk gd dk;e dj ldsA lkFk gh Jheku~ ls iqu% vkxzg gS fd jktdey pkS/kjh]
o:.k dqekj pkS/kjh] lquhy dsfM;k] v”kksd “kekZ] jkts”k dqekj laFkkfy;k] lkFkZd laFkkfy;k
o muds lHkh lg;ksxh tks fd bl uktk;t d`R; esa “kkfey gSa ij /kks[kk/kM+h o muds lHkh
lg;ksxh tks fd bl uktk;t d`R; esa “kkfey gSa ij /kks[kk/kM+h vkSj tkylkth ds
lqlaxr /kkjkvksa esa izkFkfedh ntZ dj mfpr dkuwuh dkjokbZ dh tk;s ftlds fy, eSa
Jheku~ dk lnk vkHkkjh jgwWxkA
vkidk fo”oklh
g@&vLi’V
¼dey eksgu Bkdqj½
irk% vkuanx<+ iSysl]
lw;Zeksgu Bkdqj iFk]
Fkkuk&frydkekW>h]
Hkkxyiqj 812001
eks0 ua0 9903294587
fnukad 01@4@2025
18. It would also be apposite to reproduce paragraph
Nos. 7, 9, 11 & 12 of the judgment as available through Cr.
Misc. No. 24939/2025 dated 25.04.2025 passed by this
Court, where the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Cr.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
13/16
Revision No. 152/2023 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge – XI, Bhagalpur and also the order dated 18.10.2023,
as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class,
Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1975/2022 are set aside
with a direction to pass a fresh order qua the aforesaid
complaint case in accordance with law, which reads as under:
7. It is submitted that as per settled principle of law, the
court is only to look whether a prima-facie case is made out or
not, rather than to look into the probative value of the
materials whether the case would culminate with acquittal or
conviction. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied
upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Amannullah and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and
Ors. reported in (2016) 6 SCC 699.
9. It would be apposite to reproduce para 25 of
Amannullah‘ case (supra), which reads as under:
“25. A careful reading of the material placed on record reveals
that the learned CJM took cognizance of the offences alleged
against the accused persons after a perusal of the case diary,
charge-sheet and other material placed before the court. The
cognizance was taken, as a prima facie case was made out
against the accused persons. It is well settled that at the stage
of taking cognizance, the court should not get into the merits of
the case made out by the police, in the charge-sheet filed by
them, with a view to calculate the success rate of prosecution
in that particular case. At this stage, the court’s duty is limited
to the extent of finding out whether from the material placed
before it, the offence alleged therein against the accused is
made out or not with a view to proceed further with the case.”
10. Considering the submissions as canvassed by
learned counsel for the petitioner and also the impugned
order dated 18.10.2023, it appears prima-facie that learned
Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction while recording the
impugned order of dismissal under section 203 of Cr.P.C., as
the materials available on record appears to be appreciated in
its probative terms which may prejudice legal rights of
petitioner in civil suit as discussed above, which is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
14/16
permissible in view of aforesaid legal provisions as available
through Amannullah‘ case (supra). Revisional court also
failed to appreciate aforesaid aspects.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 13.09.2024 passed in
Criminal Revision No. 152/2023 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-XI, Bhagalpur and also the order dated
18.10.2023 as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate – 1 st
Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint Case No. 1975/2022, are
hereby set-aside with a direction to the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate – 1st Class, Bhagalpur/concerned court as
to pass a fresh order qua Complaint Case No. 1975 of 2022
with available materials in accordance with law, as discussed
aforesaid without being prejudice.
12. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.”
19. It would further apposite to reproduce para 13 of
Devendra case (supra), which reads as such:
“13. There cannot, however, be any doubt or dispute
whatsoever that in a given case a civil suit as also a
criminal proceeding would be maintainable. They can run
simultaneously. Result in one proceeding would not be
binding on the court determining the issue before it in
another proceeding. In P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari
Narayana [(2008) 5 SCC 765 : (2008) 3 SCC
(Cri) 79] the law was stated, thus: (SCC p. 769, para
11)
11. It is, however, well settled that in a given case,
civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can
proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings
or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends
upon the fact and circumstances of each case.”
20. It would also be apposite to reproduce para 42 of
S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), which reads as under:
“42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and
criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very
same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
15/16stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and
criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a
civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts.
The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a
complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an
FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v. M Hari
Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali
Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528.
The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having
a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an
overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the
element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are
allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the
process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to
prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding,
where civil proceedings have already been instituted with
regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is
absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question
would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet
Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be
referred to:
’12. … Whether a complaint discloses a 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)”
21. In view of the aforesaid, as the allegation raised
through the present FIR is of execution of a sale deed using
forged signature of the father of the informant/O.P. No. 2
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31712 of 2025 dt.08-08-2025
16/16
under conspiracy, in furtherance of which land in issue was
found occupied/encroached on instance of petitioners and,
moreover, original sale deed of land in issue is with
petitioners, which yet to be collected by I.O. of this case to
ascertain its genuineness, which is core issue qua allegation of
forgery and cheating, which are cognizable criminal offences,
therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer of
petitioners in view of sole argument that civil matter is
pending between the parties as per legal ratio available
through S.N. Vijayalakshmi case (supra), as both civil
case and criminal case can co-exist, accordingly,
aforementioned petitions stand dismissed.
22. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
court concerned, henceforth.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 30.06.2025 Uploading Date 08.08.2025 Transmission Date 08.08.2025