Criminal Prosecution for Alleged Trespass Quashed as Improper Attempt to Criminalize Pending Civil Tenancy Dispute

The Petitioner, claiming to be an agricultural tenant/Gaonkar of a property in Camurlim (Survey No. 104/0), is currently pursuing a tenancy declaration before the Mamlatdar of Mapusa.

Respondent No. 2 (Attorney of Communidade of Camurlim), who is a party to the tenancy proceedings, filed a criminal complaint alleging that the Petitioner and a co-accused engaged a tractor to dig a playground on a portion of the land purportedly allotted to a sports club.

Consequently, the Colvale Police registered FIR No. 79/2024 and subsequently filed Chargesheet No. 3/2025 for offences under Sections 329(3) (Mischief) and 324(4) (Criminal Trespass) read with 3(5) (Common Intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Petitioner moved the High Court to quash these proceedings, contending they represent a criminal colorization of a civil tenancy dispute.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and Chargesheet fulfill the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 329(3) and 324(4) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law when a civil dispute regarding tenancy over the same property is pending.

The Court applied the inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [formerly Section 482 CrPC] to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained if the ingredients of the alleged offences are not disclosed even when taking the allegations at face value.

The Court emphasized the doctrine that civil disputes, particularly those involving land possession and tenancy, should not be given "criminal colour" to harass litigants.

While specific citations 1-4 provided at the end of the judgment were listed, they pertain to established Supreme Court precedents on quashing (e.g., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal).

Upon perusal of the chargesheet and statements, the Court found that the entire prosecution was based on a complaint that essentially described a dispute over land use and possession.

The Court noted that Respondent No. 2 was fully aware of the pending tenancy application before the Mamlatdar and the Petitioner’s status as a descendant of the recognized 'Gaonkar' (indirect owner) of the land.

The statements recorded by the police failed to demonstrate the specific intent or acts required to constitute 'mischief' or 'criminal trespass' under the BNS, as the Petitioner asserted a bona fide claim of possession and inherited rights.

The Court reasoned that since the dispute was fundamentally civil and the elements of the charged criminal offences were conspicuously absent, allowing the trial to proceed would be an exercise in futility and an abuse of legal process.

The Court held that the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out even if the prosecution's case were accepted as true.

Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside FIR No. 79/2024 and Chargesheet No. 3/2025 pending before the JMFC, Mapusa. Rule was made absolute.