The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of civil-criminal comity: when a civil suit involving possession or title is pending and an injunction has been granted, initiating parallel criminal proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, constitutes an abuse of process and must be quashed. This judgment provides critical clarity for practitioners navigating overlapping remedies in property disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bhupender Singh Rakka, and respondent No.3 are half-brothers with equal shares in a disputed property in Jabalpur. A civil suit for declaration of title and injunction was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jabalpur, as Civil Suit No.349-A/2024. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction.
Key Facts
- The civil suit was filed in early 2024.
- On 13.01.2025, the Civil Judge granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner, restraining respondent No.3 from interfering with possession.
- Despite the pending civil suit and the injunction order, respondent No.3 filed a complaint under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), before the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Division Gorakhpur, Jabalpur.
- The S.D.O. issued notice to the petitioner and other respondents, initiating criminal proceedings under BNSS, Case No.31/2024.
- The petitioner challenged this initiation through the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.
- The petitioner has confined this petition to Case No.31/2024 and intends to file separate petitions for Case Nos.30/2024 and 38/2024.
Procedural History
- Early 2024: Civil Suit No.349-A/2024 filed before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jabalpur.
- 13.01.2025: Temporary injunction granted in favour of petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
- After 13.01.2025: Respondent No.3 filed complaint under Section 164 BNSS, 2023, leading to Case No.31/2024.
- 12.03.2026: Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS challenging the S.D.O.'s proceedings.
- 13.03.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argued that the criminal proceedings under Section 164 BNSS are barred by the pendency of the civil suit and the existence of a court-ordered injunction. Relied on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. to assert that such parallel proceedings are an abuse of process.
- Respondent No.3: Contended that a dispute over title and possession justifies criminal proceedings under Section 164 BNSS, even if a civil suit is pending. However, conceded that an injunction had been granted.
- Respondent State: Maintained that the S.D.O. had only issued notice and not rendered any final order, hence no error was committed.
- Other Respondents (Nos.4,7,9): Supported the petitioner’s position.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of Case No.31/2024 initiated under Section 164 BNSS, 2023, on grounds of abuse of process and pendency of civil proceedings with injunction.
The Legal Issue
Can criminal proceedings under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be initiated when a civil suit concerning possession or title is already pending and a temporary injunction has been granted by a competent civil court?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 472), which held that initiating proceedings under Section 145 CrPC (now replaced by Section 164 BNSS) is impermissible when a civil suit is pending and possession is already subject to a court order. The counsel argued that Section 164 BNSS is a direct successor to Section 145 CrPC in substance and purpose, and the same logic applies. The parallel criminal proceeding undermines judicial authority, creates multiplicity of litigation, and amounts to abuse of process.
For the Respondent/State
Respondent No.3 argued that disputes over title and possession are inherently criminalizable under Section 164 BNSS, regardless of civil proceedings. The State’s counsel contended that no final order had been passed by the S.D.O., only a notice issued, and therefore no prejudice had been caused. However, this argument was implicitly abandoned when counsel conceded the existence of the injunction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comparative analysis of Section 145 CrPC and Section 164 BNSS, noting that both provisions are designed to prevent breaches of peace arising from disputes over land or water possession. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind both provisions is to provide a summary remedy to maintain public order, not to adjudicate title or ownership.
"When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved, initiation of a parallel criminal proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., would not be justified and liable to be quashed."
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant remains fully applicable under the new BNSS framework. The grant of temporary injunction on 13.01.2025 by the civil court established that possession was already under judicial protection. Allowing criminal proceedings to proceed would create conflicting adjudications and erode the authority of civil courts.
The Court further observed that Section 164 BNSS is not a substitute for civil remedies. Where possession is in dispute and a civil court has already intervened, the criminal forum must defer to the civil process. The initiation of proceedings under Section 164 in such circumstances is not merely redundant - it is legally impermissible.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The criminal proceedings under Case No.31/2024 initiated before the S.D.O. under Section 164 of BNSS, 2023 are hereby quashed. The Court granted liberty to respondent No.3 to challenge the injunction order dated 13.01.2025 before the competent civil court. The petitioner is permitted to file separate petitions challenging Case Nos.30/2024 and 38/2024.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Parallel Criminal Proceedings Are Not a Workaround for Civil Injunctions
- Practitioners must not initiate or defend proceedings under Section 164 BNSS where a civil suit with injunction is pending.
- Any such proceeding is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process under established precedent.
- The existence of a temporary injunction is sufficient to trigger the bar, even if title remains contested.
Civil Courts Take Precedence in Possession Disputes
- Section 164 BNSS is a peace-preserving mechanism, not a title-deciding forum.
- Lawyers should advise clients to pursue civil remedies for ownership claims and avoid criminal filings as tactical tools.
- Courts will not permit criminal proceedings to circumvent civil injunctions or delay enforcement.
Procedural Prudence Required in Filing
- Before filing under Section 164 BNSS, counsel must verify whether any civil suit involving the same property and possession is pending.
- If an injunction exists, the criminal complaint should be withdrawn or not filed.
- Failure to do so risks dismissal, costs, and potential contempt proceedings for misuse of judicial process.
