Karnataka HC Quashes Niece’s Criminal Case Against Uncle Over Grandfather’s Property Sale Amid Pending Civil Suit

The petitioner was accused of selling, in 2004, a property allegedly inherited jointly by the six children of his father, Nallaswamy, without the consent or knowledge of the complainant’s mother, Saroja, one of the heirs.

The complainant, Saroja’s daughter, alleged that the sale gave rise to offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

She filed a private complaint in 2023; the Magistrate referred it to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, and the police registered an FIR.

A civil dispute concerning the property was also pending, in which the complainant had been transposed as a plaintiff.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, as referred to in Bikku Bhai Govinda Bhai v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl.) No. 15537/2023, including that quashing may be warranted where allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence, the dispute is predominantly civil, proceedings are mala fide, or continuation would constitute an abuse of process.

The complaint had been referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, and the alleged offences were under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

The Court treated the dispute as one concerning rights in inherited immovable property, noting that civil proceedings over the same property were pending.

It also considered the petitioner’s assertion that the complainant’s mother had signed the 2004 sale deed and had not challenged it during her lifetime, which ended in 2013.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the complaint and FIR, even taken at face value, gave a criminal colour to the civil dispute and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.