Criminal proceedings instituted to settle a property dispute may be quashed as abuse of process.

The dispute concerned house No. 13/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, which had been let out to Respondent No. 3 under a rent agreement dated 29 November 2016.

The petitioners claimed rights over the property through a Will executed by the original owner in favour of Petitioner No. 1, followed by mutation after the owner’s death.

The petitioners alleged that the complainant stopped paying rent from January 2019 and failed to vacate the premises despite demands and legal notices.

Following proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an FIR dated 7 April 2022 was registered at Police Station Supela for offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 149, 294, 323, 327, 34, 448, 452 and 506(B) IPC.

After investigation, a final report/charge-sheet was filed on 12 November 2022, and cognizance was taken on 24 January 2025.

The complainant’s civil suit concerning the same property, Civil Suit No. 44-A/2021, was dismissed on 8 January 2025.

The petitioners invoked Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of the FIR, final report, cognizance order and criminal proceedings, contending that the prosecution was a mala fide counterblast to the landlord–tenant and possession dispute.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR, final report/charge-sheet, cognizance order and consequential criminal proceedings.

Whether continuation of the criminal prosecution, arising substantially from the property, tenancy and possession dispute, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Whether the allegations and material on record disclosed sufficient independent circumstances constituting the alleged IPC offences, notwithstanding the underlying civil dispute.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the principles permitting quashing where criminal proceedings are manifestly mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive, or continued to settle a civil dispute.

The Court also applied Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, which cautions that criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because a civil remedy exists, but criminal law must not be used to settle scores or pressurise parties in civil disputes.

Although the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising inherent jurisdiction, it may intervene where the foundational material does not justify continuation of the prosecution.

The Court examined the chronology cumulatively: the pre-existing landlord–tenant relationship, alleged non-payment of rent, demands for vacation, exchange of notices and complaints, the institution of civil proceedings concerning the same property, and dismissal of the civil suit.

These circumstances supported the petitioners’ contention that the criminal complaint had its genesis in the property and possession dispute.

While acknowledging that the existence of a civil remedy does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, the Court found that the FIR and final report did not disclose sufficient independent material demonstrating the alleged offences under Sections 147, 149, 294, 323, 34, 448 and 506(B) IPC apart from the underlying property dispute.

Consequently, permitting the prosecution to continue would facilitate the use of criminal process for pressurising the petitioners in a civil dispute and would fall within the Bhajan Lal categories of mala fide proceedings and abuse of process.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, it allowed the petition and quashed the FIR dated 7 April 2022 in Crime No. 0318/2022, the final report/charge-sheet dated 12 November 2022, the cognizance order dated 24 January 2025, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. RCC/430/2025, insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the criminal proceedings and would not determine any independent civil rights or remedies of the parties, except to the extent already adjudicated by the competent civil court.

No order was made as to costs.