04 March 2024 Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

A bitter land dispute in Gwalior, India, has taken a surprising turn. After a civilian successfully sued the Special Armed Forces (SAF) for encroaching on his property, the fight continued through legal channels. This time, the Supreme Court stepped in to end what they deemed an "abuse of process."

Facts:

• The Respondent (landowner) held title to property identified by Survey Nos. 1822 & 1823 situated in Gwalior (the Suit Property).
• A dispute arose between the Respondent and the Special Armed Forces (SAF) regarding the ownership of land adjacent to the Suit Property.
• The Respondent prevailed in a civil action, securing a court decree declaring him the owner of the Suit Property.
• The Respondent subsequently initiated Contempt of Court proceedings against the First Appellant (a SAF officer) for violating the aforementioned decree. This Contempt Petition was dismissed by the High Court, citing a boundary dispute between the parties.
• Undeterred, the Respondent filed a criminal complaint against all SAF officers, alleging trespass, assault, and threats committed on the Suit Property.
• The Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the grounds that proper sanction to prosecute government officials was not obtained.
• An Additional Sessions Judge intervened, remanding the case for the Magistrate to reconsider the necessity of sanction.
• Following the remand, the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, signifying their decision to proceed with the case.
• The Respondent appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Magistrate's decision.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the SAF officers and quashed the criminal complaint.
• The Court found the criminal complaint constituted an abuse of process due to the following factors:
• The Respondent's failure to disclose the prior Contempt Petition within the new complaint.
• The underlying land dispute being the very issue addressed in the dismissed Contempt Petition.
• Additionally, the Court deemed the complaint lacking in concrete evidence. The details provided, including specific dates and the involvement of individual officers, were deemed too vague.