### Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because an Offence Arises from a Pre-existing Civil Property Dispute

The petitioners and Opposite Party No. 2 (informant) are members of an extended family involved in a civil suit (C.S. No. 220 of 2019) regarding title and possession of property in Salepur.

On 25.11.2021, a Civil Court ordered status quo to be maintained.

On 19.05.2022, the informant alleged the petitioner violated the status quo by undertaking construction and, when confronted, wrongfully restrained him, used obscene language, and threatened him with a crowbar.

Following an investigation, the police filed Charge-sheet No. 182, and the J.M.F.C., Salepur, took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 294, and 506 of the IPC on 14.07.2022.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the cognizance order and criminal proceedings, contending the case was a malicious attempt to give a criminal color to a civil dispute.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature.

2. Whether the FIR and charge-sheet contain sufficient prima facie material to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 341, 294, and 506 of the IPC.

The court applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS), noting that such power must be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

It followed State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing only if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence or are demonstrably mala fide.

It also relied on Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, which establish that while converting civil disputes into criminal cases is deprecated, the pendency of a civil suit does not provide immunity if the acts independently disclose criminal offences.

The Court observed that while there is an admitted civil dispute regarding property title and possession, the allegations in the FIR describe specific criminal acts—wrongful restraint (Sec. 341), obscene language (Sec. 294), and criminal intimidation with a weapon (Sec. 506)—that are distinct from the civil claims.

The Court noted that the Investigating Officer cited eight witnesses who corroborated these events during the investigation.

Although the petitioner argued that the prosecution was a tool for harassment, the Court reasoned that since the materials on record prima facie satisfy the legal ingredients of the charged offences, it cannot conduct a "mini-trial" to test the veracity of witnesses at this stage.

The Court further clarified that the Civil Court's status-quo order merely protected possession and did not authorize the alleged physical threats or obstruction complained of in the criminal case.

The Court concluded that the existence of a civil suit does not render criminal allegations non-justiciable if prima facie evidence of criminal conduct exists.

Consequently, the cognizance order dated 14.07.2022 was upheld, the interim stay was vacated, and the learned Magistrate was directed to continue with the proceedings.