Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Landlords, Citing Tenant’s Move-Out And Police Endorsement Finding No Case A Day Earlier

Respondent No. 4 complained to Kavoor Police alleging that the petitioners, the owners of premises in which her father was a tenant, had used force in an effort to evict her.

Police issued an endorsement on 17 January 2023 stating that no case was made out; respondent No. 4 lodged the complaint underlying the impugned FIR the following day.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and related proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC.

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC to seek quashing of the FIR and proceedings.

The FIR invoked Sections 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the specified provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The judgment cited no precedent or separately formulated legal test; its reasoning was that, in the circumstances before it, continuation of the criminal case was no longer warranted.

The Court relied on the police endorsement issued one day before the complaint and on the fact that respondent No. 4 had vacated the premises.

It considered that the endorsement and timing supported the petitioners’ contention that the complaint had been framed to invoke the alleged offences in connection with the possession dispute. It further reasoned that, after respondent No. 4 vacated, the apprehensions underlying the complaint had been quelled and continuation of the criminal case was unwarranted.

The operative order quashed the FIR; it did not separately set out relief concerning the petitioners’ request for protection or expressly address the complaint as a distinct order.