Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court recently set aside criminal proceedings initiated in a complaint case involving a property dispute, ruling that criminal law should not be used as a weapon to settle civil disagreements. This significant judgment reinforces the boundaries between civil and criminal litigation and protects individuals from vexatious prosecutions.

In this case, the petitioner, a doctor by profession, was drawn into criminal proceedings following the sale of a disputed property. The background reveals a complex family history involving partition of ancestral property in 1974 among three brothers and their parents. The father and mother of the petitioner had self-acquired properties in Kolkata and Chapra, respectively. Both properties were gifted to the petitioner through registered gift deeds—his father’s in 1977 and his mother’s in 1986. The mother also left a Will in favor of the petitioner, the probate of which is pending in court.

In 2013, one of the family members, Ajay Ojha (son of the petitioner’s brother), executed two sale deeds—one transferring a property bequeathed to the petitioner through a Will, and another that was the petitioner’s own purchased land. One of these properties was sold to the complainant, Baliram Ojha.

Shortly afterward, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the petitioner and others arrived at his house, hurled abuses, threatened him not to take possession of the purchased land, and forcibly took his signatures on blank stamp papers. These acts were claimed to constitute offences under Sections 323 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code (voluntarily causing hurt and extortion).

The petitioner contended that the criminal complaint was a malicious attempt to harass him, driven by an underlying civil dispute. He pointed out that he had already filed his own complaint against the property sale. He sought to quash the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate, arguing that such private disputes over property title are best addressed in civil courts, not through criminal trials.

The complainant argued that he had purchased the property in good faith and that the offences alleged were supported by witness statements. He also cited Supreme Court rulings stating that a defense should not be entertained at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and that trial must go forward if there is a prima facie case.

However, the High Court emphasized that while Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be used sparingly, it remains a vital safeguard against abuse of the legal process. It highlighted prior Supreme Court rulings that disapproved of attempts to pressure opponents in civil disputes by filing criminal cases. The Court noted that the timing and nature of the complaint—filed just days after the petitioner discovered the sale of his property—revealed mala fide intentions.

Finding that the allegations were essentially rooted in a civil property dispute and were being used to intimidate the petitioner, the Court ruled the complaint to be vexatious and malicious. Consequently, it quashed the order taking cognizance and the entire subsequent criminal proceedings.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment draws a clear boundary between civil and criminal litigation. It is a reaffirmation of the principle that property and title disputes should be addressed in civil courts and not turned into criminal allegations to gain undue advantage.

For the general public, especially those involved in property transactions within family settings, the ruling serves as a vital precedent. It assures citizens that criminal law cannot be misused to settle scores in civil disputes. For courts and legal practitioners, it reemphasizes the importance of judicial scrutiny in preventing legal harassment through inappropriate criminal proceedings.

Government agencies and law enforcement should also take note that they must exercise caution before acting upon criminal complaints arising from purely civil disagreements.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning

• Can a criminal case proceed when it is clearly based on a civil property dispute?
  • Decision: No. The Court quashed the criminal case.
  • Reasoning: The allegations were a misuse of the criminal justice system intended to harass the petitioner over a property dispute.
• Is the existence of a registered sale deed sufficient ground to initiate criminal proceedings against a third party?
  • Decision: Not necessarily.
  • Reasoning: A civil dispute over title cannot automatically give rise to criminal liability unless supported by distinct criminal conduct, which was not evident here.
• Can the High Court intervene under Section 482 CrPC even when the trial is ongoing?
  • Decision: Yes.
  • Reasoning: The High Court retains the power to prevent abuse of court process at any stage of proceedings.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Yogendra Prasad & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2019 (3) PLJR 890
• Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2019
• Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., 2006 (6) SCC 736

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
• Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., AIR 2019 SC 210

Case Title

Dr. Purnendu Ojha v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20995 of 2015

Citation(s)

2020 (3) PLJR 37

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Vikash Kumar Sharma, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Harshvardhan – Advocates for the Petitioner
• Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP – For the Opposite Parties

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMyMDk5NSMyMDE1IzEjTg==-Qejre8h0M–ak1–s=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.