The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that criminal proceedings initiated to harass a party in a civil dispute, particularly between landlord and tenant, constitute an abuse of process and warrant quashment under Section 482 CrPC. This judgment provides critical clarity on the limits of police power and the judiciary’s duty to prevent misuse of criminal law for private vendettas.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, rented a flat in Raipur to the complainant, a young woman, during the COVID-19 lockdown in May 2020 under an oral arrangement due to restrictions on documentation. The complainant occupied the premises but refused to execute a written rent agreement. After neighbors reported suspicious activity, the petitioner requested her to vacate. She initially filed a complaint at Police Station Amanaka, which was later withdrawn through a written compromise in which she admitted the complaint was filed solely because the petitioner asked her to leave. A temporary compromise allowed her to stay pending alternative accommodation.
Procedural History
- 11.09.2020: Complainant attended a family function at the petitioner’s village; cash and mobile phones went missing.
- 14.09.2020: Alleged assault occurred; no immediate complaint filed.
- 16.09.2020: Complainant vacated the flat and lodged FIR at Police Station Kabir Nagar.
- 24.09.2020: FIR formally registered as Crime No. 171/2020 under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC.
- 17.08.2021: Charge-sheet filed before JMFC, Raipur, as Criminal Case No. 9032/2021.
- 2023: A separate FIR (Crime No. 1895/2020) against the petitioner was stayed by the Supreme Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashment of the FIR, charge-sheet, and all related proceedings on grounds of mala fide intent, lack of prima facie case, procedural irregularities, and abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings under Sections 294, 323 and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the dispute originates from a civil landlord-tenant conflict, the FIR is filed with unexplained delay, no incriminating evidence is recovered, and the complainant previously admitted the complaint was retaliatory.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, fail to establish the essential ingredients of the offences. The dispute was inherently civil, the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident without justification, medical examination was delayed, no damaged mobile phone was seized, and witness statements were recorded after a 15-day delay. Reliance was placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh to show that where the material reveals no prima facie case and the proceedings are malicious, quashment is warranted.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that the High Court must not delve into disputed facts at the quashment stage. It argued that the complainant was vulnerable during lockdown, coerced into signing the compromise, and that the delay in FIR was due to fear and pandemic restrictions. Reliance was placed on Bhajan Lal to argue that quashment is impermissible if a prima facie case exists.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a structured review of the Bhajan Lal principles and the four-step test from Manoj Kumar Sharma. It held that the complainant’s own written compromise, admitting the complaint was filed only because the petitioner sought eviction, established mala fide intent. The Court noted that the alleged assault occurred on 14.09.2020 but the FIR was registered only on 16.09.2020, with no plausible explanation for the delay. The medical report, dated 18.09.2020, described the injury as "simple" and no physical evidence - such as the alleged broken mobile phone - was seized. Witness statements were recorded after a 15-day gap without justification, undermining credibility.
"Even if the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC are not prima facie made out."
The Court emphasized that the complainant’s prior admission of retaliatory motive, combined with the absence of corroborative evidence and procedural lapses, rendered the case a classic example of criminalizing a civil dispute. The Court distinguished Bhajan Lal’s caution against excessive interference by noting that this case fell squarely within Category 7 - malicious prosecution driven by private grudge. The Court further held that the existence of a parallel FIR, already stayed by the Supreme Court, reinforced the pattern of abuse.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed Crime No. 171/2020, the charge-sheet dated 17.08.2021, and all proceedings before the JMFC, Raipur. The Court held that continuation of such proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and violates the principle of securing justice under Section 482 CrPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Malice Can Be Proven Through Prior Admissions
- Practitioners must highlight any prior written or recorded admissions by complainants that reveal retaliatory motive.
- A compromise deed or statement admitting the complaint was filed due to eviction demand is decisive evidence of mala fide.
Delay and Lack of Evidence Are Critical Indicators
- Unexplained delay in FIR registration, especially beyond 48 hours, must be challenged as a red flag.
- Absence of seized incriminating material, delayed medical reports, and belated witness statements collectively undermine prosecution credibility.
Civil Disputes Cannot Be Criminalized Through FIR
-
Landlord-tenant, property, or financial disagreements must not be converted into criminal cases under Sections 294, 323 or 506 IPC.
-
Courts must scrutinize whether the complaint is a tool of coercion rather than a genuine grievance.
-
Always file a detailed affidavit with the quashment petition, attaching all prior communications, compromises, and evidence of delay.
-
Cite Bhajan Lal Category 7 and Manoj Kumar Sharma’s four-step test to structure your argument.
-
Do not rely solely on lack of evidence - emphasize the malicious intent revealed by the complainant’s own conduct.
