Criminal trespass proceedings were quashed where ownership remained disputed in pending civil litigation.

The petitions concerned competing claims to property bearing Sy. No. 76/1 at Gonighattapura Village. Respondent No. 2 claimed to have purchased the property from Srinivasa Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 18 May 2016; the property was later sold to Rajashekar under a sale deed dated 6 June 2017.

Separate charge-sheeted criminal cases alleged trespass, intimidation and related offences against Srinivasa Reddy and Thanish Kumar, his son.

An earlier cheating case concerning the same transaction had resulted in a police B-report, which had not been challenged. A subsequent private-complaint case was quashed by the High Court in W.P. No. 29941/2018.

Respondent No. 2 had also filed O.S. No. 142/2017 seeking declaration of title and injunction; the defendants disputed his title and sought cancellation of the sale deeds under which Srinivasa Reddy claimed rights.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings alleging trespass, intimidation and related offences should be quashed where the parties’ competing rights over the property remained subject to adjudication in a pending civil suit.

2. Whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners, in the circumstances, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings.

The Court applied the principle that such proceedings may be quashed where, in the circumstances of the case, their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The alleged offences arose under Sections 447, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC in Crl.P. No. 754/2023, and Sections 506, 504 and 447 read with Section 34 of the IPC in Crl.P. No. 631/2023.

No precedent was cited in the order.

The Court considered that respondent No. 2’s title had not been established: his claim was pending in O.S. No. 142/2017, where the defendants disputed the sale deeds and sought their cancellation.

It also took account of the unchallenged B-report in the earlier cheating case and the quashing of the proceedings arising from the later private complaint.

Given the parties’ unresolved civil dispute over ownership and the petitioners’ status as the property’s erstwhile owners, the Court considered the trespass allegations difficult to accept at that stage.

It concluded that allowing the impugned criminal cases to continue would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court quashed the proceedings against Srinivasa Reddy in C.C. No. 479/2019, arising from Crime No. 30/2017, and against Thanish Kumar in C.C. No. 458/2019, arising from Crime No. 114/2018.