Police Cannot Insist Property Buyer Settle Dispute On Their Terms, Karnataka HC Says, Directing Notice And Objective Probe Into Assault And Demolition Allegations

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No. 335/2026, registered for offences under Sections 76, 77, 79, 115(2), 189(2), 304(2), 324(4), 329(4) and 351(2), read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

She submitted that she was not named in the complaint or FIR, had purchased a different property under a registered sale deed, and was being called to the police station to settle a property dispute.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the incident concerned property involved in pending civil proceedings and included trespass, destruction of a structure and assault.

The petitioner also referred to pending suits concerning the properties.

The Court considered the quashing petition and the parties’ submissions.

The petition was brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as stated in the petition, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court stated that police cannot insist that a person settle a property dispute on terms imposed by the police or the opposing party; however, allegations of destruction of property and assault warrant an objective investigation.

In conducting that investigation, the police must follow the prescribed procedure and issue notice to the petitioner.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the dispute to appear principally concerned with the identity of immovable property, in the context of competing property claims and pending civil suits.

That context did not justify police involvement in compelling a settlement.

But because the complaint also alleged destruction of a structure and assault, the Court did not terminate the investigation; it directed that any investigation be objective and conducted according to procedure, with notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner may provide relevant records if called upon to join the investigation.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the parties’ contentions or the pending civil suits, and clarified that any police report would not determine the title dispute.