Patna High Court
BRIJ NANDAN SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The petition is allowed and the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya is quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, Brij Nandan Singh and Manoj Singh, challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya dated 25.03.2019 which had taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC (among others) based on a complaint by Mahendra Kumar Singh relating to a land‑partition dispute. The complaint alleged assault, intimidation and other criminal acts, but the High Court observed that the underlying controversy was essentially a civil property dispute that had been given a criminal colour. Relying on precedents that caution against converting civil matters into criminal prosecutions and on the limited scope of Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that the magistrate’s order was an abuse of process. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the order of the magistrate was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint arising from a land‑partition dispute is a civil matter disguised as a criminal case.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the magistrate’s order.
- Whether the alleged acts constitute offences under the IPC warranting criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 380, 427, 448, 504
Subjects
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- civil dispute
- criminal jurisdiction
- land partition
- IPC offences
- quash order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8290 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1330 Year-2017 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
1. BRIJ NANDAN SINGH Son of Late Brahmdeo Singh Resident of Village -
Durgawari, P.s.- Civil line, Distt.- Gaya.
2. MANOJ SINGH Son of Brij Nandan Singh Resident of Village - Durgawari,
P.s.- Civil line, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGH Son of Sakaldeep Singh Resident of Village
- Shayam Talkies Campus, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Harsh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
7 16-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This application is being filed against the order dated
25.03.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.1330 of 2017 by the
learned Court of Judaical Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya whereby the
learned Court below has been pleased to take cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code against the petitioners.
3. That the prosecution story in brief as set out in the
complaint petition inter alia is that the complainant Mahendra
Kumar Singh S/o Late Sakaldeep Singh, r/o Mohalla- Shayam
Talkies Campus, P.S. Muffasil, District- Gaya has filed a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8290 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
2/7
Complaint against 1. Chandra Shekhar Singh, 2. Brijnandan
Singh, 3. Manoj Singh, for the offences U/s 323, 341, 448, 427,
380/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, stating
therein that the complainant is law abiding citizen and residing
with family in the campus of Shayam Talkies under P.S. Muffasil,
District-Gaya. The complainant's father were 6 brothers namely 1.
Late Sakaldeep Singh 2. Late Pradeep Singh 3.Late Chandreshwar
Singh 4. Jagdeep Singh 5. Brij Nandan Singh 6. Late Shalok
Singh sons of Late Brahmdeo Singh. The complainant's father
Late Sakaldeep Singh had joint property at village- Dema
Fatehpur, P.S. Khijarsarai, District- Gaya as well as so many
places in Gaya town and all the properties had been partitioned by
the learned Civil Court, Gaya vide Partition Suit No. 43/2016. The
complainant and his brothers namely Nagendra Singh and
Amrendra Singh, Arun and heirs of Jagdip Singh had peaceful
possession over properties. The complainant and his both brothers
and heirs of Jagdeep Singh had also got some piece of land in
partition at village Mastpura, P.S.-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya and
had constructed a house over the land and peacefully residing
therein and care taker namely Bhim Bahadur of Nepal has been
deputed for taking care of that land. It has been further alleged that
the accused No.2 has been trying to disturb peaceful possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8290 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
3/7
the complainant and for this, the accused No.2, first time on
20.03.2016 had filed a false case in Bodh Gaya Police Station
being Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No.95/2016 and had implicated the
complainant and his family members in addition to Jagdeep Singh
and his sons and grand sons. Again on 08.12.2016, the Manager of
Brij Nandan Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd. namely Babalu Kumar s/o
Ajay Kumar Singh r/o Village Jamdi, P.S.- Cherki, District-Gaya
had lodged Bodh Gaya P.S.Case No.512/16 in which beside the
complainant's family members Jagdeep Singh and his heirs were
made accused. On 28.07.2017 the said Manager again lodged
Bodh Gaya P.S. Case No.458/2017 against the Complaint and his
heirs and Bhim Bahadur Singh.
4. It has been further alleged that accused No.2 is a rich
person and his intention was to dispossess the complainant and his
brother from the land of Mastpura and for this the accused no.2
under conspiracy has been lodging false cases or caused false
cases to be lodged. The case lodged by the accused No.2 being
Case No.95/2016 in which the allegation was of stealing of Motor
Parts amounting of rupees 5 lacs,. till date police did not recover
any articles and also in case, which was lodged by the Manager of
the accused No. 2, accusation of stealing of Motor Parts
amounting of rupees 5-10 lacs was made but police did not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8290 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
4/7
recover any Motor Parts or money. The earlier criminality of the
accused No.2 and 3 has been proved by the son of the accused
No.2, Abhimanyu Singh, who has lodged Gandhi Maidan P.S.
Case No.85/2015 and same has been found true and C/S has been
submitted against the accused No.2 and 3 for the offences U/s 419,
420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120(B).
5. It has further been alleged that the accused No.2
sometime disclosed himself as Manager of Marikraj Motors Pvt.
Ltd. and sometime as Manager of Brijanand Auto Mobile Pvt. Ltd.
and in connivance with Bodh Gaya Police, and under instruction
of accused No. 2 and 3 used to lodge false cases. On 19.08.2017,
when the complainant and his nephew Rohit Kumar Singh @
Tuntun were at the land of Mastpura and were talking with Bhim
Bahadur (Guard) at that time accused No.2 alongwith accused No.
1 and 3 and 5-7 other came and started abusing. When the
complainant's nephew Rohit Kumar @ Tuntun protested, then the
accused no.2 ordered to kill Mahendra (Complainant). The
accused No.1 put the complainant at ground and started pressing
his neck and anyhow complainant’s nephew rescue him.
6. The complainant to substantiate the allegation has
been examined under section 200 code of Criminal Procedure on
18.07.2018, stating therein that he has lodged case against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8290 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
5/7
Chandra Shekhar, Brij Nandan Singh and Manoj Singh for the
occurrence of 19.08.2017 happened at Mastpura at 10.00 A.M.
The complainant under solemn affirmation had stated that the land
of Mastpura area belongs to him and all the accused used to abuse
him. Brijnandan Singh, is uncle of the complainant and on his
instance Chandra Shekhar Singh have lodged 3-4 cases. The
complainant under solemn affirmation has further stated that the
said land of Mastpura was given to him in partition but possession
has been stopped by his uncle and the accused persons always
used to disturb him.
7. A bare perusal of para 3 of the complaint which
shows that the partition suit was filed by the parties or their
ancestor being partition suit No.43 of 1976 and the case
essentially is in connection with this land dispute only which has
been given the criminal colour.
8. In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India
Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188 : 2006 SCC
OnLine SC 747 at page 748, it has been held that 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8290 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
6/7
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.
9. In the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000)
2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 : (2000) 100 COMP CAS
613 : 2000 SCC OnLine SC 279 at page 643, it has been held
that Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised
with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not
to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter,
which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of
criminal offence. Criminal 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8290 of 2022(7) dt.16-03-2026
7/7
to secure the ends of justice.
10. In view of the above legal settled principle of law,
this petition is allowed and the order dated 25.03.2019 passed in
Complaint Case No.1330 of 2017 by Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class, Gaya is quashed.
(Ansul, J)
sanjeev/-
U
Checking your session…