Manga Ram Choudhary vs Mansa Ram & Ors.

Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing three petitions titled above under section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for quashing the proceedings drawn by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class

(Sub Judge) Samba. It appears that three complaints came to be filed by respondents against the petitioneralleged accused for the commission of

offences punishable under section 420,427,341,323,506 and 504 of Ranbir Penal Code on the grounds which can be aptly and precisely

enumerated as under:

It is stated in the complaints that Manga Rampetitioner alleged accused had to construct double railway track from Devik Bridge to Railway

Gate Bara as a contractor. In order to carry out the said work he was in need of earthclaysoil for filling the track. He approached the

complainantsrespondents for digging land and for lifting the clayearthsoil in order to fill up the railway track. It is also alleged that the

petitioneralleged accused made a promise to the complainantsrespondents that after digging and lifting the earthsoilclay he will make the leveling of

the land of the respondentscomplainants and construct a pacca road from link road Bara to village Chak Medu Basotra. Accordingly, the

petitioneralleged accused removedextracted soilclayearth from the land of the respondentscomplainants but failed to fulfill the promise.

It is also alleged that complainantsrespondents along with some other inhabitants of the village approached the petitioneralleged accused and

requested him to fulfill the promise by leveling the land of the complainantsrespondents and to construct a pacca road. But he avoided and did not

fulfill the promise. Instead of fulfilling the promise, he abused the complainantsrespondents. In support of the complaints, preliminary statements of

complainantsrespondents and of one witness in each complaint came to be recorded. One of the complainantrespondent namely Mansa Ram has

stated that they had approached the concerned police for registering the case but they refused to do so and asked them to file appropriate case.

While going through the allegations contained in the complaints, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the grievance of the

complainantsrespondents is that the petitioneralleged accused has failed to fulfill the promise and thereby has committed breach of agreement.

There is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that petitioneralleged accused has deceived the complainantsrespondents by any deceitful means or

has dishonestly deceived them and there is also nothing on the file that any such act was ever conducted by the petitioneralleged accused which

falls W(ithin the detention of criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of RPC. As the best it can be primafacie said that it is a case of breach

of agreement/breach of promise. The criminal court(s) cannot he used for settling the civil disputes by short cuts and to avoid the payment of court

fees.

In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that filing of complaints, initiation of process is abuse of process of law.

Accordingly the petitions are allowed and the complaints as also the proceedings initiated thereunder are quashed. However, it is made clear

that this order shall not come in the way of the respondentscomplainants from seeking the appropriate remedy available under law.