Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8624 (UTT)

H. K. Baurai v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-01-03

Ashish Naithani

body2026
JUDGMENT : ASHISH NAITHANI, J. 1. The present group of three applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of a common order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020, titled Smt. Poonam Nehra v. Rajbeer Singh and others. 2. The controversy has its genesis in proceedings relating to acquisition of rights of user in land for laying of a gas pipeline project undertaken by GAIL (India) Limited, under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. 3. Notifications under the Act of 1962 were issued, acquisition proceedings were completed, and compensation was determined and disbursed in accordance with the statutory mechanism. The compensation proceedings culminated much prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings, and no challenge was raised at the relevant time before the competent authority under the Act. 4. Respondent No. 2 claimed herself to be a co tenure holder in respect of the acquired land and alleged that compensation was disbursed exclusively to Respondent No. 3, a co sharer, without granting her proportionate share. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid grievance, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, alleging collusion between officials of the acquiring authority and Respondent No. 3, and seeking directions for registration of a criminal case. 6. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the application and the material placed on record, rejected the prayer for registration of an FIR, finding that the dispute essentially pertained to compensation and did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020. By order dated 30.05.2022, the revisional court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate’s order, and directed registration of a criminal case. 8. Consequent to the revisional order, three separate applications under Section 482 CrPC came to be filed: o C-482 No. 1082 of 2022 by one of the officers against whom proceedings were sought to be initiated. o C-482 No. 1485 of 2022 by GAIL (India) Limited, the acquiring body. o C-482 No. 2119 of 2022 by another individual co accused. 9. Consequent to the revisional order, three separate applications under Section 482 CrPC came to be filed: o C-482 No. 1082 of 2022 by one of the officers against whom proceedings were sought to be initiated. o C-482 No. 1485 of 2022 by GAIL (India) Limited, the acquiring body. o C-482 No. 2119 of 2022 by another individual co accused. 9. Interim protection was granted in all the three matters at different stages, and the impugned revisional order dated 30.05.2022 remained stayed during the pendency of the proceedings. 10. As the challenge in all the three applications is directed against the same revisional order and arises from an identical factual matrix, they were connected and heard together. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the impugned revisional order is a clear abuse of the criminal process, inasmuch as it permits criminal prosecution to be used as a tool for reopening and re agitating a compensation dispute governed entirely by a special statute. 12. It was argued that the Act of 1962 constitutes a complete code in itself, providing for acquisition, determination of compensation, apportionment, reference, and adjudication of disputes. Once the statutory process has been completed, criminal law cannot be invoked to bypass limitation or statutory remedies. 13. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence. The gravamen of the allegations relates to entitlement to compensation, which is purely civil and statutory in nature. 14. It was contended that the revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own satisfaction for that of the Magistrate and by directing registration of an FIR without recording any finding as to the existence of a cognizable offence. 15. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the officials against whom allegations have been levelled were discharging statutory duties in good faith under the Act of 1962, which itself provides protection to officers acting in pursuance of the statute. 16. It was urged that permitting criminal prosecution in such circumstances would have a chilling effect on statutory authorities and public officials, and would open floodgates for criminal litigation arising out of compensation disputes. 17. 16. It was urged that permitting criminal prosecution in such circumstances would have a chilling effect on statutory authorities and public officials, and would open floodgates for criminal litigation arising out of compensation disputes. 17. Learned counsel also submitted that the revisional order fails to consider the substantial delay in initiation of criminal proceedings, the absence of any contemporaneous objection during compensation proceedings, and the settled principle that criminal law cannot be employed as a pressure tactic. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Respondent No. 2 supported the impugned revisional order and submitted that the allegations disclose collusion and wrongful deprivation of compensation, which warranted investigation by the police. 19. It was contended that the scope of inquiry at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC is limited, and that the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations can be examined only after investigation. 20. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional court was justified in directing registration of an FIR to ensure that the grievance of Respondent No. 2 is duly examined by the investigating agency. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 22. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the entire factual foundation of the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated by Respondent No. 2 emanates from a dispute relating to disbursement of compensation pursuant to acquisition of rights of user in land under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The acquisition proceedings, issuance of statutory notifications, determination of compensation, and its disbursement are not in dispute. 23. The Act of 1962 is a special enactment which provides a complete and self-contained mechanism governing acquisition, determination of compensation, apportionment, and adjudication of disputes arising therefrom. The statute also prescribes the remedies available to an aggrieved person and the forum before which such remedies are to be pursued. 24. A perusal of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC reveals that the gravamen of the allegations is that Respondent No. 2, claiming herself to be a co tenure holder, was not paid her alleged proportionate share of compensation, which, according to her, was disbursed exclusively to Respondent No. 3. The allegations of collusion are founded entirely on this assertion. 25. A perusal of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC reveals that the gravamen of the allegations is that Respondent No. 2, claiming herself to be a co tenure holder, was not paid her alleged proportionate share of compensation, which, according to her, was disbursed exclusively to Respondent No. 3. The allegations of collusion are founded entirely on this assertion. 25. Even if the allegations made in the application are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable criminal offence. The dispute essentially pertains to entitlement and apportionment of compensation, which is a matter squarely falling within the domain of civil and statutory adjudication. 26. It is well settled that criminal law cannot be invoked as a substitute for civil remedies, nor can it be used as a tool to reopen or revive disputes which are otherwise governed by a special statute providing an exhaustive remedial framework. Permitting criminal prosecution in such circumstances would amount to allowing the criminal process to be used for purposes for which it is not intended. 27. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, had examined the nature of the allegations and had correctly concluded that the dispute did not warrant registration of a criminal case. The Magistrate exercised discretion vested in law after applying judicial mind to the material before the court. 28. The revisional court, while setting aside the order of the Magistrate, did not record any clear finding as to how the allegations disclosed the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The revisional order proceeds on a generalized premise that the matter requires investigation, without addressing the fundamental issue of whether criminal law could at all be set in motion in the facts of the case. 29. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. The revisional court is required to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order under challenge. It cannot mechanically direct registration of an FIR unless it is satisfied that the refusal by the Magistrate suffers from patent illegality or perversity. Such satisfaction is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. 30. This Court also finds merit in the submission that the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC were initiated after considerable delay, long after the compensation proceedings had attained finality. Such satisfaction is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. 30. This Court also finds merit in the submission that the proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC were initiated after considerable delay, long after the compensation proceedings had attained finality. No contemporaneous objection appears to have been raised before the competent authority under the Act of 1962 at the relevant time. 31. Allowing criminal prosecution to proceed in such a fact situation would have the effect of unsettling completed statutory proceedings and exposing public authorities and officials to criminal litigation for acts performed in discharge of statutory duties. Such an approach would have serious implications for the functioning of statutory bodies and would be contrary to the settled principles governing exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 32. The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC exists to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice. Where the criminal process is sought to be invoked to give a criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil or statutory in nature, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not intervene. 33. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned revisional order dated 30.05.2022 suffers from a manifest error of jurisdiction and results in abuse of the criminal process. Continuation of proceedings pursuant thereto would not serve the ends of justice. ORDER: The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1485 of 2022, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1082 of 2022, and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2119 of 2022 are allowed The impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020, titled Smt. Poonam Nehra v. Rajbeer Singh and others, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands restored. All proceedings sought to be initiated pursuant to the impugned revisional order dated 30.05.2022 shall stand terminated.