Tenant’s ₹38,000 Deposit Dispute With Landlord: Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Case, Finding No Material Supporting Assault And Threat Charges

Respondent No. 2 complained that, after she vacated a house leased from the petitioners, they withheld part of her ₹6,00,000 security deposit, threatened her, broke her mobile phone and wristwatch, and took her rental agreement

The petitioners maintained that ₹5,62,000 had been refunded and ₹38,000 retained for painting, repairs and damage to the premises

The police initially registered the case under Sections 354, 323, 420, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC; the charge-sheet filed on 14 December 2023 proceeded under Sections 354, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 34068/2023, arguing that the dispute was contractual and the alleged offences were not made out

The petition was brought under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, invoking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

Under the IPC provisions considered, Section 323 requires voluntary causing of hurt; Section 354 requires assault or criminal force against a woman with the requisite intent or knowledge concerning outraging her modesty; Section 504 requires intentional insult with the requisite likelihood of provoking a breach of peace or another offence; Section 506 requires a threat of injury intended to cause alarm or compel action or omission; and Section 427 requires intentional or knowing damage causing wrongful loss or damage

A civil or contractual dispute is not, by itself, a ground to quash criminal proceedings; however, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations and investigation material do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences

The Court also observed that cheating under Section 420 requires dishonest or fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction, and that a later disagreement over deductions or repayment does not, by itself, establish cheating

The Court found that the central dispute was whether the petitioners had properly deducted ₹38,000 from the security deposit for expenses, a question arising from the lease arrangement

The investigation material did not identify specific acts causing bodily injury, particulars establishing the requisite intent or knowledge under Section 354, the words and intent necessary for Sections 504 and 506, or supporting material showing intentional damage to the complainant’s belongings

The alleged retention of the disputed sum therefore did not, without the required criminal ingredients, sustain the prosecution; the complainant’s remedy for any unjustified deduction was a claim for recovery

Although the existence of a civil remedy alone would not justify quashing, the absence of material supporting the charged offences made continuation of the case an abuse of process

It allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 34068/2023 against the petitioners under Sections 504, 506, 354, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC, while reserving Respondent No. 2’s liberty to pursue any permissible recovery proceedings