GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 30 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 30:

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner, Rajkumari Das is seeking quashing of a complaint case being C.R. Case No. 575/2025 under section 61/229/318(4)/336(3)/337 of BNS, 2023, pending before the learned JMFC, Nagaon.

3. The facts in a nutshell are that correspondent No. 2, Surajit Dey, as complainant had filed a complaint dated 24/10/2025 before the court of the learned CJM, Nagaon. The gist of the allegations was that on 24/01/2008, 2008, he purchased a plot of land measuring 1-katha, 1.5-lessa from Benu Das, Deepak Das and Deepankar Das through a registered sale deed No. 141/2008 and subsequently, the name of the complainant was mutated and he came to possess the said land. It is stated that for accessing the land, he also acquired a L-shaped pathway measuring 11 feet by 250 feet from a portion of land under Patta No. 373, Dag No. 76 belonging to accused No. 2. It is stated that on 20.06.2018, the accused persons mentioned in the complaint wrongfully dispossessed the complainant leading him to file a land grabbing case before the court at Nagaon being Special (LG) Case No. 30/2018 in which the accused persons filed their written statements.

4. It is further alleged that the accused persons by fraudulently making certain documents entered into an agreement with a builder by the name Royal Mansion, Nagaon Commercial-cum-Apartment over a land of 2-Bighas, 1-Katha under Dag No. 76, Patta No. 373 and wrongfully included the aforesaid land of the complainant as well.

5. The complainant has also alleged that they also obtained a fraudulent compromise decree by misleading the court on 04.09.2017 and that the complainant has instituted T.S. No. 97/2019 re-numbered as T.S. No. 235/21 challenging that compromise deed.

6. As many as 12 persons are named in the complaint as accused persons including the present petitioner, Rajkumar Das who has been arrayed as accused No. 3.

7. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner contends and submits that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and in connection with which other civil proceedings are also pending and therefore, the complainant/respondent has grossly abused the process of law by instituting this complaint against the petitioner and others. He accordingly submits that in terms of the settled law in this regard laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about preventing criminalization of civil disputes - he seeks quashing of the complaint proceedings.

8. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the complainant has legitimate grievances giving rise to liability under criminal law and therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent as complainant is not at all an abuse of court process and rather he is taking recourse to legitimate methods provided in criminal law.

9. The scanned copy of the case record was called for and received and relevant portions perused.

10. From the case record, I find that the learned court below vide order dated 02.05.2025 accepted the complaint petition and issued notice to the opposite party to appear for hearing. It is stated in the order dated 26-06-2025, that the prayers for furnishing of copy annexures was allowed and it was also informed to the court on that day about filing of the instant criminal petition before this Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x%2Bjvsba4TizdSkrIh94CpdI1TmdWAZtliVPztzvDvObI&caseno=Crl.Pet./670/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010123142025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.