Parking-Space Row Between In-Laws: Karnataka HC Quashes Case Against 4 Guards, Keeps Case Against Sister-In-Law

Respondent No. 2 alleged that petitioner No. 1 and petitioners Nos. 2–5 trespassed into a disputed apartment parking space on 5 February 2024, and that petitioner No. 1 assaulted and abused her and threatened her.

The complaint led to registration of Crime No. 34/2024 under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC; after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all five petitioners and the Magistrate took cognizance.

The parking dispute was also the subject of a pending civil suit in which an injunction had been granted in favour of respondent No. 2’s husband.

The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, contending that the complaint arose from the civil dispute and that petitioners Nos. 2–5, apartment security guards, had not participated in the incident.

The State and respondent No. 2 opposed the petition, relying on the charge-sheet material, including CCTV footage and witness statements.

The petition was considered under Section 482 of the CrPC, which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the court’s process.

The Court assessed whether the complaint and charge-sheet materials prima facie disclosed the alleged offences and the individual petitioners’ involvement.

It cited no precedents or other substantive legal doctrines; the offences alleged were under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court held that the pending civil dispute did not, by itself, justify quashing the criminal case.

The CCTV footage depicted an incident between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, and eyewitness statements described the quarrel; the Court therefore found prima facie material against petitioner No. 1.

By contrast, the footage did not show petitioners Nos. 2–5 participating or establish their presence at the scene.

Given their role as apartment security guards and the absence of specific material implicating them, the Court found that the charge-sheet did not prima facie disclose their involvement and that continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court dismissed the petition as to petitioner No. 1, leaving the proceedings against that petitioner to continue, and quashed the proceedings against petitioners Nos. 2–5 in C.C. No. 54493/2024 for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

It directed that its observations should not affect the trial court’s disposal of the case.