Criminal proceedings may be quashed when a civil property dispute is maliciously given a criminal colour.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he had purchased and possessed Site No. 1 in Survey No. 34/2 and that the petitioners had encroached on it and constructed a building. The police registered Crime No. 5/2024 against the petitioners under Sections 447 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The parties were also engaged in civil litigation concerning the property: respondent No. 2’s suit for declaration and injunction had been dismissed, but an appeal resulted in remand; a separate injunction suit brought by the petitioners had been decreed, with respondent No. 2’s appeal pending.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the complaint gave a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

1. Whether the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 447 and 504 read with Section 34 IPC

2. Whether, in light of the pending property litigation and the circumstances surrounding the complaint, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process warranting relief under Section 482 CrPC

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, or where continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for categories in which quashing is justified, including proceedings manifestly attended by mala fides and allegations that fail to disclose an offence.

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra for the general restraint against interference at the investigation stage, subject to recognised exceptions.

Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. and State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy for the principle that, in alleged frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court may consider relevant surrounding circumstances and materials, while not ordinarily assessing the reliability of evidence.

The Court also cited Bikku Bhai Govinda Bhai v. State of Gujarat on preventing criminal proceedings from being used to harass parties in predominantly civil property disputes.

The Court considered the complaint alongside the parties’ multiple pending civil proceedings concerning the same site and the petitioners’ submission that construction had been completed after obtaining an injunction against respondent No. 2.

In that context, it inferred that the complaint had been filed to give a criminal colour to the property dispute and to wreak vengeance.

It concluded that the allegations, even taken at face value, did not make out the alleged offences and that continuation of the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.