Criminal proceedings over a minor altercation in a pending civil dispute were quashed where no injuries were alleged.

The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 225/2026, arising from a complaint alleging offences under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 329(3), 352, 351(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The complaint alleged verbal abuse, threats and trespass in the context of a civil dispute between the parties concerning property in O.S. No. 1/2020.

The petitioners relied on subsequent civil-court proceedings, including an order setting aside the trial court’s order and a High Court direction to maintain status quo over the disputed property.

The complainant and the State opposed quashing, submitting that the complaint disclosed the alleged offences and that disputed facts required trial.

1. Whether the charge sheet and criminal proceedings should be quashed where the allegations concerned threats, verbal abuse and trespass arising from a pending civil property dispute.

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution was justified in light of the parties’ agreement to pursue their remedies before the civil court and the absence of injuries to the complainant or her family members.

The petition invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking the High Court’s intervention to quash the charge sheet and consequential proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 329(3), 352, 351(2) and 190 of the BNS.

The Court did not cite a precedent or set out a broader legal test; it assessed the allegations and surrounding circumstances to determine whether continuation of the prosecution was justified.

The Court noted that the allegations concerned verbal abuse, threats and trespass, but that the complainant and her family members had sustained no injuries.

It also considered the pending civil dispute, the procedural history of the civil proceedings and the High Court’s direction to maintain status quo over the property.

Given the parties’ joint submission that they would abide by the civil court’s decision and seek redress there, the Court viewed the prosecution as arising from a minor altercation connected with the property dispute.

In those circumstances, it concluded that continuation of the criminal trial was not justified.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.