Later encroachment after genuine conveyance presents a civil dispute, not cheating by society officers.

Respondent No. 2, a member of the Karnataka College Lecturers and School Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., purchased Site No. 181 under a sale deed dated 26 March 2021 for stated consideration of Rs. 8,37,482.

The site was included in a layout approved by MUDA; the khata was transferred to her name, and MUDA granted building-plan approval.

She later alleged that the site did not belong to the Society and had been occupied by an adjoining landowner, Nagappa, and accused the petitioners—the Society’s President and Secretary/CEO—of knowingly allotting it to her to defraud her

On her private complaint, the Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; police registered a case under Sections 420 and 408 read with Section 34 IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; the State submitted that a charge sheet had been filed

1. Whether the complaint and materials disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420 and 408 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, in light of the alleged encroachment and the documents relating to the sale and layout approval, amounted to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where, among other recognised categories, the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence or continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

The Court relied on the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and on the passage quoted from Bikku Bhai Govinda Bhai v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl.) No. 15537/2023, which states that criminal proceedings may be quashed where a predominantly civil property dispute is given a criminal character and the allegations fall within the recognised categories for intervention

The Court also referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, noting that although courts ordinarily should not interfere at the investigation stage, intervention remains appropriate where the allegations fail to disclose a cognizable offence or the proceedings manifestly amount to abuse of process

The Court relied on the sale deed, MUDA’s approval of the layout including Site No. 181, the khata and revenue records, and MUDA’s building-plan sanction as supporting the petitioners’ position that the site had been conveyed to respondent No. 2 and possession handed over

It considered the later allegation that the site was encroached by an adjoining landowner to concern a dispute between respondent No. 2 and that landowner, rather than conduct attributable to the petitioners.

In the Court’s view, the materials did not show that the petitioners retained the consideration without executing the sale deed or failed to hand over possession; accordingly, the alleged encroachment did not establish the charged offences against them

Applying the cited principles on Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process

It quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 347/2024, arising from Crime No. 144/2023, for offences under Sections 420 and 408 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the XI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru