PATNA, India, Sept. 29 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 29:

Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Dr. Ajeet Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 1265(C) of 2021 by the learned ACJM-I, Bettiah, West Champaran, by which, complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner had preferred protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, which was not entertained by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, considering the fact that final form with case diary shows that the matter relates to land dispute. The protest petition was converted into a complaint case and record was transferred under Section 192(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of learned A.C.J.M. 1, Bettiah for further enquiry as per the law. Learned A.C.J.M., 1, vide order dated 13.10.2023, after considering the entire facts as contained in the complaint, has arrived at conclusion that the matter relates to civil dispute relating to dispute between the parties with respect to certain land for which, there is agreement between the parties and on the basis of information on record, had dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The Apex Court has been of consistent view and has made caution to the learned District Courts, as well as, High Courts, particularly, High Court is required to sparingly exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person? The answer stricto 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.

6. The proposition has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in (2009) 5 SCC 528.

7. In the present case, the manner in which the complaint has been drawn against the petitioner in absence of any element of criminality no criminal case can be made out.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMzMDkzIzIwMjQjMSNO-BDKKQ2oKPuw=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.