Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Landowners Accused Of Locking Flat Buyer Out Despite Pending Civil Suit

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he purchased and took possession of Flat No. 106 in January 2023.

He complained that on 26 June 2024 the petitioners and others forcibly entered the flat, prevented him from entering, damaged a grill, threatened him, and attempted to dispossess him.

Jayanagar Police registered Crime No. 226/2024 for offences under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448 and 324 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that the complaint arose from a pending civil dispute in O.S. No. 810/2021 and was intended to harass them.

The State and complainant opposed the petition, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the nascent stage of the investigation.

1. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the petitioners alleged that it was a false criminalisation of a pending civil dispute.

2. Whether the allegations and material available at the preliminary stage disclosed cognizable offences warranting continuation of the investigation.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the offences alleged under Sections 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380, 448 and 324 IPC.

A pending civil dispute, by itself, does not justify quashing an FIR; that a court should not anticipate the outcome of an ongoing investigation or accept an unsubstantiated defence at the threshold; and that an FIR may remain under investigation where the complaint and available material prima facie disclose cognizable offences.

The complaint specifically alleged forcible entry into the complainant’s flat, attempted dispossession, damage to property, threats and obstruction.

The Court noted that the investigation remained at an early stage and that relevant evidence had yet to be collected; the HCGP also reported that the police had invoked provisions of the Arms Act based on allegations that the accused were armed.

In those circumstances, the Court declined to assess the truth of the allegations or infer mala fides merely from the pending civil suit.

It found that the complaint and material collected thus far prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, and that the petitioners’ defence did not warrant threshold interference.

The Court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.