A property dispute does not bar prosecution where allegations and medical evidence disclose assault.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, amid a family dispute over partition of her father’s property, petitioners Vijayendra—her brother’s son—and Ravi assaulted her on 9 November 2023. She was taken to hospital, and the wound certificate recorded a nasal-bone fracture, assessed as grievous, along with other injuries.

Periyapatna Police registered Crime No. 261/2023 and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 354, 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 57/2024, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature and that no specific overt act was alleged against petitioner No. 2.

1. Whether the family property dispute rendered the alleged assault purely civil in nature and warranted quashing of the criminal proceedings.

2. Whether the allegations and investigation material were insufficient to sustain proceedings against petitioner No. 2 because his specific role was not established.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that the existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings where the allegations also disclose criminal offences.

At the quashing stage, the Court does not undertake a detailed assessment of evidence or witness credibility as if conducting a trial; the parties’ roles and the evidentiary merits may be determined by the Trial Court.

The Court treated the property dispute as the possible genesis of the incident, but not as a basis to characterize the alleged assault as purely civil. The complaint was supported by medical material recording injuries, including a grievous nasal-bone fracture, and by witness statements collected during the investigation.

The Court declined to assess the credibility of that material or determine the precise participation of each petitioner at the quashing stage. It held that the alleged roles, including that of petitioner No. 2, were matters for trial and that the record did not establish that the allegations were inherently untenable.

It reserved liberty to the petitioners to raise all their defences at trial.