Karnataka HC Quashes Seven FIRs Between Two Families, Finding Property-Dispute Complaints Were Offshoots Of Long-Running Civil Suits

The connected petitions concerned seven cross-complaints registered between parties involved in long-running disputes over property and its possession.

The parties’ property disputes had generated civil proceedings over several years; the Court noted that the impugned criminal proceedings arose against that background and followed the civil litigation, including the dismissal of a suit in July 2023.

The petitions sought to quash Crime Nos. 229/2023, 231/2023, 73/2025, 93/2025, 74/2025, 103/2025 and 305/2025.

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, relying on the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or proceedings are maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance.

For wrongful restraint under IPC §§339–341, the prosecution must allege voluntary obstruction that prevents a person from proceeding in a direction in which they have a right to proceed; the Court relied on Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Meherwan Rustom Irani.

For IPC §§503–504 and 506, criminal intimidation requires a threat accompanied by the requisite intent to cause alarm, while insult under §504 must be intentional and of a kind likely to provoke a breach of the peace; mere abuse is insufficient. The Court relied on Mohd. Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka.

It also held that the complaints did not disclose the requisite conduct or intent for the offences concerning a woman’s modesty under BNS §§74–76 and 79.

The Court further relied on authorities cautioning against using criminal proceedings to pursue essentially civil disputes or settle personal scores.

The Court examined the complaints alongside the history of the parties’ civil disputes and concluded that the allegations, as pleaded, did not establish the necessary elements of the offences charged.

In particular, it found that the complaints did not adequately disclose wrongful restraint, the intent and circumstances required for intentional insult or criminal intimidation, or conduct meeting the statutory requirements for the alleged offences concerning women’s modesty.

Considered in the context of repeated cross-complaints arising from the same property conflict, the Court inferred that the criminal proceedings were an offshoot of the civil disputes and were being used to give those disputes a criminal colour.

It therefore found continuation of the prosecutions to be an abuse of process.

The Court quashed the impugned crimes in Crime Nos. 229/2023, 231/2023, 73/2025, 93/2025, 74/2025, 103/2025 and 305/2025.