Criminal proceedings cannot convert a disputed property claim into prosecution absent foundational offence ingredients.

The petitioners were accused Nos. 1–8 in Crime No. 90 of 2025 registered by Jigani Police Station for offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t), 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(za) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”) and Sections 329, 351 and 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

Respondent No. 2 claimed to belong to the Bhovi community and asserted hereditary occupancy and ownership rights over portions of land bearing Sy. No. 21 at Mahanthalingapura Village.

The petitioners claimed possession under a registered sale deed and revenue entries.

The parties were already litigating their title and possession claims in O.S. No. 1094 of 2016 and O.S. No. 1052 of 2023, both pending before the civil court.

The complainant alleged that, on 1 January 2025, the petitioners removed stones allegedly marking the samadhis of her ancestors, cut eucalyptus trees, installed cameras and attempted to construct a compound wall.

She further alleged that on 3 January 2025 the accused removed two samadhis with JCB machinery, threatened and abused her and others, and used caste-based expressions.

Jigani Police initially treated the matter as civil and issued a non-cognizable report.

Thereafter, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS, pursuant to which the Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and Crime No. 90 of 2025 was registered.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR and the direction referring the private complaint for investigation.

Whether the allegations in the complaint, arising from a pending dispute regarding title and possession of land, prima facie constituted criminal trespass, criminal intimidation and abetment under Sections 329, 351 and 45 of the BNS.

Whether the allegations satisfied the statutory ingredients of Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t) and 3(1)(za) of the SC/ST Act.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process where the criminal complaint was allegedly being used as a pressure tactic or counterblast in pending civil litigation.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 329 of the BNS requires entry upon property in the possession of another accompanied by the prescribed criminal intent; a disputed claim of title or possession does not, by itself, establish criminal trespass.

The Court applied Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(t) and 3(1)(za) of the SC/ST Act, holding that penal ingredients must be specifically pleaded and cannot be supplied by inference.

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) additionally require intentional insult, intimidation or caste-based abuse in a place “within public view.”

Relying on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, and Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435, the Court held that a property dispute does not become an atrocity merely because one party belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, absent the requisite caste-based intent and public-view requirement.

It also relied on Gunjan v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834, for the necessity of a specific allegation that the incident occurred within public view and for the requirement of intent to cause alarm in criminal intimidation.

The principles in Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, permit the Court to examine the surrounding circumstances and quash proceedings where allegations do not disclose an offence or are manifestly malicious.

The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie in possession under a registered sale deed and that the complainant’s title and possession remained unresolved in the pending civil suits.

In that context, the allegation that the petitioners had trespassed into property which they themselves claimed and possessed could not establish Section 329 of the BNS; the related allegations of intimidation and abetment could not survive independently once the foundational trespass allegation failed.

Section 3(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act was wholly unsupported because the complaint contained no allegation that any inedible or obnoxious substance was put into, or forced into, the complainant’s mouth.

The allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) failed to state that the alleged caste-based abuse occurred in a place within public view, while the caste nexus appeared to arise from the property dispute rather than an intention to humiliate the complainant because of her caste.

The alleged stones were not established, even on the complainant’s material, to be objects generally known to be sacred or held in high esteem so as to attract Section 3(1)(t).

Section 3(1)(za) also depended upon the unresolved assumption that the complainant had the legal right to use or possess the disputed land.

Considering the chronology, the prior civil litigation, the non-cognizable report and the subsequent private complaint, the Court concluded that the criminal process was being used to exert pressure in a civil dispute, attracting the Bhajan Lal and Mahmood Ali principles.

Both criminal petitions were allowed.

FIR No. 90 of 2025 registered by Jigani Police Station, together with the criminal proceedings pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, was quashed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and would not prejudice or influence the parties’ other pending civil proceedings.