Karnataka HC Keeps Case Alive Against Man Accused Of Demolishing Complainant’s Wall With JCB Amid Property Dispute

Respondent No. 2 alleged that on 4 November 2023 the petitioner, accompanied by about 25 persons, used a JCB to demolish a compound wall and later began construction on the property.

Police registered a case under Sections 427, 506, 34, 504 and 447 IPC; after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner alone under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 IPC.

The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet and the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance, contending that the dispute was civil and that the investigation had not addressed the other 25 persons named in the complaint.

The property was also the subject of a pending civil suit challenging earlier partitions and sale deeds.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to seek quashing of the charge sheet and cognizance order.

The Court applied the principle that the existence of a civil dispute does not, by itself, justify quashing where the complaint and charge sheet disclose criminal elements.

The alleged offences were under Sections 447, 427, 504 and 506 IPC.

The Court also treated concerns about the investigation—including the omission of other persons and apparent errors in witness statements—as matters that could be raised before the trial court.

The civil suit did not establish that the criminal proceedings were merely an attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

The suit challenged earlier family arrangements and sale deeds, while Respondent No. 2 was a third-party purchaser under registered sale deeds dating from 2000; statements between family members about joint possession could not, at this stage, be treated as binding on that purchaser.

The complaint and charge-sheet materials, including photographs showing debris and construction, alleged demolition of the compound wall using a JCB; whether the petitioner was responsible was a matter for trial.

The omission of the other persons and the apparent date errors in statements related to the investigation and did not, in themselves, justify quashing.

The Court considered the stated incident date of 14 November 2024 inconsistent with a statement recorded on 10 April 2024, and left the discrepancy for determination by the trial court.

It reserved liberty to both the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 to file appropriate applications before the trial court.