Patna High Court
SYED AHSAN MAJEEDversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The order of cognizance dated 21‑02‑2022 is quashed as the matter is essentially a civil dispute.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the same family, filed a petition to quash the order of cognizance dated 21‑02‑2022 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate in a case registered as Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 37 of 2021, which alleged offences under several IPC sections arising from a family dispute over land partition. The petitioners argued that the dispute was essentially civil, involving claims of assault, theft, and forced signing of documents, and that criminal proceedings were being used to pressurise the parties. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Mohd Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and Indian Oil Corp. v. NEPC India Ltd.), held that the matter should be resolved in a civil forum and that the criminal process was being misused. Accordingly, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court quashed the order of cognizance. The application for quash was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The dispute is essentially civil and not a criminal offence.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order of cognizance.
- Whether the alleged acts fall within the scope of the IPC offences listed.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 144, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 379, 447, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- civil dispute
- criminal jurisdiction
- Section 482 CrPC
- quash of cognizance
- family partition dispute
- misuse of criminal law
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70226 of 2022
Arising out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2021 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Syed Ahsan Majeed, Son of Late Syed Mohammad Majeed R/o Majeed
Compound, Bagh, Kalu Khan, P.S- Khajekalan, Dist- Patna
2. Farhat Ahsan Wife of Syed Ahsan Majeed R/o Majeed Compound, Bagh,
Kalu Khan, P.S- Khajekalan, Dist- Patna
3. Syed Hussain Majeed Son of Syed Hasan Majeed R/o Majeed Compound,
Bagh, Kalu Khan, P.S- Khajekalan, Dist- Patna
4. Shahina Parween @ Syeda Shahina Majeed Wife of Syed Hussain Majeed
R/o Majeed Compound, Bagh, Kalu Khan, P.S- Khajekalan, Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Syed Hassan Majeed Son of Late Syed Mohammad Majeed R/o Majeed
Compound, Bagh, Kalu Khan, P.S- Khajekalan, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seek quashing of the order of cognizance
dated 21.02.2022 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Patna City, Patna in connection with Khajekalan P.S.
Case No. 37 of 2021 (G.R No. 452 of 2021) registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 447,
448, 34 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70226 of 2022 dt.15-05-2026
2/4
3. The petitioner No. 3 is son of the Opposite Party No.
2, Informant. Petitioner No. 4 is the wife of the petitioner No. 3.
Father has lodged a case against his son that they entered into his
house and assaulted him and snatched away watch from the hand
of his son Syed Faisal Majeed. They also forced them to sign a
number of documents and stated that though partition has not
taken place but they are selling land to someone else. The
Petitioner No. 1 has lodged a formal FIR being Khajekalan P.S.
Case No. 37 of 2021 dated 03.02.2021. Moreover, Petitioner No. 2
has filed suit No. 01 of 2015 against his father seeking partition
which is pending. The petitioner No. 3 is a practicing Advocate of
this Court and he has been implicated along with his wife
Petitioner No. 4. He has even admitted of having taken recourse to
under Section 144 Cr.P.C vide Case No. 869 of 2020 and the
dispute is well within the family and it is also a subject matter.
This clearly shows that dispute is essentially civil in nature which
has been admitted to be settled through criminal prosecution.
4. This matter is purely a civil dispute for which remedy
lies in a Civil Court in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar reported in
(2009) 8 SCC 751. The relevant paragraph No. 8 reads as under:-
“8. This Court has time and again drawn
attention to the growing tendency of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70226 of 2022 dt.15-05-2026
3/4
complainants attempting to give the cloak of a
criminal offence to matters which are essentially
and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply
pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards
the accused, or to subject the accused to
harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that
proceedings before it are not used for settling scores
or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But
at the same time, it should be noted that several
disputes of a civil nature may also contain the
ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have
to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also
amount to civil disputes.”
5. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has reiterated the same
principle in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd.
reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736. The relevant paragraph No. 13
reads as under:-
“13. While on this issue, it is
necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely
civil disputes into criminal cases. This is
obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect the
interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow be
entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is
a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any
effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged.
“It is to be seen if a matter, which
is essentially of a civil nature, has been given
a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70226 of 2022 dt.15-05-2026
4/4
proceedings are not a short cut of other
remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a
great deal of caution. For the accused it is a
serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which the High
Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under
this section has to be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
6. In view of such, the order of cognizance dated
21.02.2022 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Patna City, Patna in connection with Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 37
of 2021 (G.R No. 452 of 2021) registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 447, 448, 34 of
the IPC is quashed.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
(Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.