Criminal proceedings may be quashed when maliciously used to give a civil property dispute criminal colour.

G.M. Krishna Reddy, the owner of property at Hoodi Village, had granted respondent No. 2 a power of attorney to manage it.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, on 23 June 2014, the petitioners and others entered the property, broke open the house, stole articles, and later assaulted and threatened him.

He lodged a complaint on 3 July 2014; after investigation, the petitioners were charge-sheeted as accused Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 454, 380, 323, 342, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC.

They sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The petitioners relied on the delay in lodging the complaint, the complainant’s further statement that no articles had been stolen and that the incident occurred on a different date, the absence of recovery, and a pending civil dispute involving the property.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the charge-sheet and witness statements disclosed cognizable offences.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC as an abuse of process, having regard to the delay, inconsistencies in the complainant’s accounts, absence of recovery, and the related civil dispute.

2. Whether the allegations and materials disclosed the alleged offences against the petitioners, or instead indicated that the complaint was initiated with mala fide intent to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, under which the High Court may quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal categories, including allegations that do not disclose an offence, allegations that are inherently improbable, and proceedings manifestly instituted with mala fide intent or to wreak vengeance.

It also cited Mohammed Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 (15) SCC 488, for the principle that, when an allegation of vexatious prosecution is raised, the Court may consider the surrounding circumstances and investigation materials, not merely the complaint’s wording.

The judgment further relied on Bikku Bhai Govinda Bhai v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl.) No. 15537/2023, dated 22 May 2026, as authority against using criminal proceedings to harass or coerce parties in a predominantly civil property dispute.

The Court considered the ten-day delay in lodging the complaint alongside the complainant’s further statement that no gold, silver or electronic articles had been stolen and that the incident occurred on 24 June rather than 23 June 2014.

It also noted that no recovery had been made at the petitioners’ instance and that a civil dispute concerning the property was pending between the owner and certain accused.

Taken together, these circumstances led the Court to conclude that the complaint had been lodged in retaliation and to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute; it found that the allegations did not establish the offences alleged against the petitioners and that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

It quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 53361/2016, arising from Crime No. 374/2014, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 454, 380, 323, 342, 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC, insofar as they concerned accused Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11—the petitioners.