Criminal proceedings cannot continue where a purely civil property dispute is maliciously given criminal colour.

In Criminal Petition No. 2749/2022, the petitioners challenged the order dated 19 August 2021 by which the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, took cognizance of offences under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 420, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, in Special Case No. 500/2021.

The complainant alleged that petitioner No. 1 had agreed to sell her house for ₹48,00,000, received approximately ₹47,00,000, executed a lease-cum-sale agreement and delivered possession, but subsequently executed a gift deed and mortgaged the property to ICICI Bank for obtaining a loan, thereby intending to defeat the complainant’s rights.

Civil suits for specific performance and injunction, including O.S. Nos. 950/2019 and 4416/2020, were pending between the parties.

The SC/ST Act allegations were introduced through a subsequent complaint dated 30 June 2020, whereas the initial complaint dated 19 March 2020 invoked only IPC offences.

In Criminal Petition No. 4564/2021, the petitioners sought quashing of Crime No. 253/2020 registered on the complaint of Supriya for offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 468, 420, 419 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The complaint alleged, inter alia, financial transactions involving approximately ₹1.20 crore, harassment, demands for sexual acts, attempts to outrage the complainant’s modesty, and pressure exerted by the accused’s family members to support their version.

Whether the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 2749/2022 had established grounds under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the cognizance order and criminal proceedings arising from the property and sale transaction?

Whether the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 4564/2021 had established grounds under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing Crime No. 253/2020 on the ground that it was a counterblast and an abuse of criminal process?

The Court exercised the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which must be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, subject to judicially evolved restraints.

Applying the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court noted that quashing is justified where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence, or where the proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.

The Court relied on Sumit Bansal v. MGI Developers and Promoters, (2026) 6 SCC 366, for the proposition that the High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or assess the sufficiency of evidence while exercising Section 482 jurisdiction.

It also applied Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, and G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636, which establish that the existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose a criminal offence, but criminal law cannot be used to give a criminal cloak to a purely civil dispute or as a shortcut to civil remedies.

Further, relying on Sardar Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 12 SCC 51, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings in a substantially civil dispute, where civil suits are pending, may amount to abuse of process.

Regarding Criminal Petition No. 2749/2022, the Court found that the parties had initially enjoyed cordial and family-like relations and that the dispute arose from the alleged receipt of sale consideration, execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement, and subsequent dealings with the property.

The existence of pending suits for specific performance and injunction demonstrated that the central controversy concerned enforcement of property and contractual rights.

The Court also considered significant that the first complaint did not contain allegations under the SC/ST Act and that such allegations were introduced subsequently, after the institution of the civil proceedings.

Although the complainant alleged fraudulent creation of documents and mortgage of the property, the Court characterised the dispute as essentially civil and held that criminal colour had been added to it.

Regarding Criminal Petition No. 4564/2021, the Court observed that the complaint dated 5 November 2020 followed the earlier property-related complaints and civil litigation.

It found that the allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were substantially limited to their alleged insistence that the complainant give evidence in their favour, while the principal allegations were directed against petitioner No. 1.

The Court treated the complaint as a counterblast arising from the financial and property dispute.

On that basis, the Court concluded that continuation of both proceedings would constitute abuse of the process of law.

In Criminal Petition No. 2749/2022, the Court quashed the order dated 19 August 2021 taking cognizance of the offences under the SC/ST Act and Sections 420, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC, and quashed the proceedings in Special Case No. 500/2021.

In Criminal Petition No. 4564/2021, the Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 253/2020 for offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 468, 420, 419 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, pending before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.