A Civil Title Dispute Does Not Warrant Quashing Investigation Into Alleged Trespass

The petitioners sought to quash the investigation in Crime No. 12/2026 of Srirampura Police Station, registered for alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 190, 352, 329(4), 351(2) and 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

They relied on civil-court judgments dismissing the complainant’s injunction suit and on a BBMP notice directing demolition of a structure, contending that the complainant was not in possession and that trespass could not be sustained.

The complainant asserted that he had acquired interests in the property through registered conveyances from Yogananda and two daughters of the original owner, Venkataswamy Naidu; he also submitted that the petitioners claimed through Yogananda.

The State submitted that the allegations of trespass and demolition required investigation.

Whether the civil-court decisions and the BBMP demolition notice warranted quashing the criminal investigation concerning the alleged incident.

Whether the parties’ competing claims to the property justified allowing the investigation to proceed.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to seek quashing of the investigation.

The alleged offences were under Sections 115(2), 190, 352, 329(4), 351(2) and 324(4) of the BNS.

The Court stated no separate general test or precedent for quashing; its assessment was that, on the material and competing submissions before it, the matter required investigation.

The Court considered the petitioners’ reliance on the civil judgments and BBMP notice, but noted that the complainant’s case included a registered sale deed from Yogananda and conveyances of shares from two daughters of Venkataswamy Naidu.

Even if Yogananda lacked absolute title, the Court observed that he would have a share as a Class-I heir, and his sale deed had not been set aside even to the extent of that undivided share.

The BBMP notice, by itself, did not confer title on the petitioners.

Given these circumstances and the allegations of trespass and demolition, the Court concluded that the matter required investigation rather than quashing at that stage.

It expressly left the parties’ civil disputes and contentions about the alleged incident open.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the petition, did not express an opinion on the alleged incident, and would not affect any pending civil dispute; all contentions concerning the incident remained open.