Landlord–tenant disputes cannot sustain criminal charges where allegations lack the offences’ essential ingredients.

Respondent No. 2, a tenant of the petitioners, alleged that a dispute over the return of her lease deposit and deductions for maintenance and electricity charges led to abusive conduct and physical assault by the petitioners.

She also alleged that the third petitioner posted insulting material online.

The police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and the proceedings were pending in C.C. No. 4677/2023.

A counter-complaint by the second petitioner had resulted in a ‘B’ report, which was accepted and the proceedings closed.

The petitioners sought to quash the pending proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the complaint and charge-sheet material disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings arising from the landlord–tenant dispute would amount to an abuse of the process of law

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (corresponding to Section 528 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

The alleged offences were under Sections 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

Relying on Mohd. Wajid v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, the Court noted that Section 504 requires intentional insult accompanied by an intention or knowledge that it is likely to provoke a breach of the peace or another offence; where abusive words are relied on, their content is material to assessing that ingredient.

For criminal intimidation under Sections 503 and 506 IPC, an intention to cause alarm must be established.

The Court considered the complaint and the charge-sheet summary and treated the dispute as arising from the parties’ landlord–tenant relationship and disagreements over the tenancy and deposit.

It observed that the allegations, viewed against the requirements stated in Mohd. Wajid, did not disclose the necessary ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

It also took into account that the opposing complaint arising from the same episode had ended with acceptance of a ‘B’ report, whereas the present complaint had resulted in a charge sheet.

In the Court’s view, allowing the proceedings to continue in these circumstances would constitute an abuse of process.