A pending civil property dispute does not bar investigation into specific allegations of criminal trespass.

Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners and others attempted to trespass upon his property in Govindapura.

The complaint relied on photographs said to show persons entering the property on 13 March 2024 and attempting to build a compound wall in the early hours of 3 April 2024.

Petitioners 3 and 4 had filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against Respondent No. 2, and the petitioners contended that the private complaint was a counterblast to that suit.

They sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

The High Court considered whether the civil dispute and the material accompanying the complaint justified terminating the proceedings before investigation.

1. Whether the existence of a pending civil dispute over possession, by itself, warranted quashing the criminal proceedings alleging trespass.

2. Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed allegations requiring investigation, including against petitioners who were not visible in the photographs.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

The Court applied the principle that a civil dispute over title or possession does not, by itself, preclude criminal proceedings where the complaint alleges a separate criminal act; conversely, the existence of a civil dispute does not establish criminal trespass.

Whether entry was unauthorised, whether it amounted to criminal trespass, and who participated or directed the alleged acts were matters for investigation.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The photographs and complaint alleged that a group entered the property and attempted to construct a compound wall, presenting specific circumstances requiring verification by the Investigating Officer.

Although petitioners 1, 3 and 4 were not visible in the photographs, the complaint alleged that they acted together or through others; their roles could not be determined conclusively at the quashing stage.

The pending civil suit did not negate the need to investigate the alleged entry, though the rival possession claims were to remain relevant during the investigation.

It clarified that it had expressed only a prima facie view and that the investigation must proceed uninfluenced by its observations; I.A. No. 1/2026 was also dismissed.