A pending property dispute does not warrant quashing criminal proceedings where threat and abuse allegations require trial.

The petitioner sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 300/2025 for alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an incident on 11 March 2025.

The parties were also involved in a dispute concerning the property: proceedings relating to the petitioner’s occupancy claim and a civil suit for injunction were pending, and an appellate court had granted an injunction in favour of respondent No. 2.

The petitioner argued that the criminal complaint was a counterblast to his earlier complaint.

Respondent No. 2 relied on CCTV footage said to have been recovered during investigation and included in the charge-sheet.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed because they arose from a pending property dispute and the petitioner’s earlier complaint.

2. Whether the allegations of threat and verbal abuse, together with the charge-sheet materials, required adjudication at trial.

The petition invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (and was also described as one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to seek quashing of the proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 126(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court cited no precedent or detailed legal test; it considered whether the allegations and charge-sheet materials warranted trial, while leaving the merits of the prosecution and the civil dispute open.

The pending property litigation did not, by itself, make the criminal prosecution untenable.

Although the Court noted that the criminal court might not be able to determine whether there had been an attempted trespass while title remained disputed, the complaint also alleged threats and verbal abuse—matters the trial court could examine on the charge-sheet materials.

The Court further noted the CCTV material relied on by respondent No. 2, the property records standing in the complainant’s name, and the injunction granted in respondent No. 2’s favour.

The petitioner’s earlier complaint was not, merely by being earlier, sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings.

The Court therefore considered the matter one requiring trial.

It clarified that its observations were confined to the petition and did not determine the merits of the charge-sheet, the civil suit, or the application pending before the competent authority; all contentions were left open.