Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Neighbour Feud Case Over Alleged Dog Attack, Assault And Threats

The petitioners, who are neighbours of respondent No. 2, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 1056/2024 arising from Crime No. 126/2023 and alleging offences under Sections 427, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC

Respondent No. 2’s complaint, lodged on 7 June 2023, described a history of disputes dating from 2016 and alleged, among other matters, interference, assaults and that the petitioners had caused their dog to attack her

The petitioners argued that the earlier allegations were time-barred under Section 468 CrPC and that the dispute was essentially civil

They had also lodged complaints against respondent No. 2 and her family, resulting in a separate charge-sheeted case pending trial

Mediation did not result in settlement.

Section 468 CrPC prescribes limitation for taking cognizance of specified offences; limitation is assessed by reference to the date of commission of the particular offence, the applicable limitation period and the date cognizance was taken—not simply the earliest date mentioned in a complaint.

Earlier incidents may be recounted as background without thereby becoming separate offences prosecuted in the current case.

A civil or neighbourly origin to a dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings where the allegations and investigation material prima facie disclose the ingredients of an offence.

In exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (invoked as Section 528 BNSS), the Court does not conduct a trial by weighing disputed evidence or assessing witness credibility; where a prima facie case is disclosed, disputed factual questions ordinarily remain for the trial court.

The offences alleged were under Sections 427, 447, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court treated the incidents preceding the events underlying Crime No. 126/2023 as the history of the parties’ dispute, rather than as the independent offences forming the subject matter of the present prosecution. Their narration therefore did not, by itself, establish a limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC.

Nor did the neighbourly or civil background justify quashing: the Court found that the complaint and charge-sheet material, including photographs, prima facie disclosed the alleged offences.

The petitioners’ cross-complaints and the competing accounts did not determine either side’s culpability; those disputed matters required assessment at trial, not resolution in the quashing proceeding.

It dismissed the criminal petition, leaving the trial court to decide the case independently on its merits and uninfluenced by the observations in the order.