A civil title dispute cannot sustain criminal proceedings against a purchaser where alleged fraud is attributable to the vendor.

The petitioner claimed that Obalappa had granted her a power of attorney over site No. 66 in Andrahalli in 1988, followed by a registered sale deed in her favour in 2006.

In the intervening period, Obalappa had sold the same property to respondent No. 2, M. Shivakumar, by a sale deed dated 13 September 2006; the petitioner’s sale deed was executed on 24 November 2006.

Respondent No. 2’s complaint led to an FIR against the petitioner for offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014, and Sections 420 and 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, contending that any fraud was committed by Obalappa, not her.

The State supported investigation, while respondent No. 2 opposed quashing.

1. Whether the FIR against the petitioner should be quashed where the competing transactions over the property were made by the same vendor and the dispute was predominantly civil in nature

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, without naming Obalappa as an accused, amounted to an abuse of process

The Court considered the offences alleged under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014, and Sections 420 and 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

It applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the dispute is predominantly civil and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court cited no precedent and did not separately set out the statutory elements of the alleged offences.

The Court found that Obalappa had first executed a power of attorney and affidavit in favour of the petitioner, then sold the same property to respondent No. 2, and later executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

It considered Obalappa to be the person who had committed fraud, if any, against both parties.

Given the competing claims to ownership, the Court treated the matter as predominantly civil and considered it an abuse of process to proceed against the petitioner without naming Obalappa as an accused.

It left Obalappa and his son Hanumanthappa at liberty to pursue their rights concerning the property in a duly constituted civil suit.