Criminal prosecution is unsustainable where the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature.

The petitioner filed a criminal complaint under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against private respondents and an unknown mob, alleging the commission of cognizable offenses including criminal trespass and robbery regarding land in Village Umreli

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Korba, dismissed the complaint on November 18, 2025, after considering preliminary evidence and a police report, concluding the dispute was civil in nature

This order was upheld by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, in a revision petition on March 3, 2026

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (inherent powers), arguing that the acts constituted criminal offenses under Sections 303, 310, and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and violated a permanent injunction

The underlying dispute involved family land (Khasra Nos. 991, 993, 452, and 151) that had been subject to prior civil litigation and a status quo order by the High Court

Whether the lower courts committed an illegality by dismissing the complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS on the grounds that the dispute was civil in nature

Whether the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS was warranted to set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice

Criteria for initiating criminal proceedings under Section 223 of the BNSS

Precedent of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., which mandates the registration of an FIR when a cognizable offense is disclosed

The established legal principle that civil disputes regarding land titles and possession should not be adjudicated through criminal proceedings

The Court scrutinized the record and observed that the dispute was rooted in a familial conflict over ancestral land between the petitioner’s father and his relatives

Although the petitioner alleged criminal acts such as entering land with an armed mob to steal crops, the Court found that the petitioner failed to produce essential documentation to support a criminal intent, such as a family tree, a copy of the civil decree, or the High Court's status quo order

The Court noted that the history of civil litigation between the parties regarding the specific Khasra numbers indicated that the grievance was essentially a property dispute

Consequently, the Court found that the JMFC and the Revisional Court correctly identified the matter as civil and that the initiation of criminal proceedings would be inappropriate

The Court determined there was no manifest illegality or irregularity in the lower courts' findings that would necessitate interference under its inherent jurisdiction

The Court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS

The petition was dismissed at the motion stage