1. Property dispute leading to civil suits for injunction and declaration; subsequent criminal proceedings under Sections 448 and 506 IPC alleging threats to withdraw said suits. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 327
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
P.M. Lokanath And Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2014
Decided on : 06-02-2025
Important Points
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intentions and lacking a prima facie case constitute an abuse of process, warranting quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.39 R.1, O.39 R.2
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.155(2), S.155(5), S.156(1), S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.448, S.506
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.155(2), S.155(5), S.156(1), S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.448, S.506
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 448 and 506 - Appeal against dismissal of petition to quash criminal proceedings - Allegations of threats made by appellants found to be absurd and motivated by mala fide intentions - Court emphasizes the need for sparing use of quashing powers to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 1, 20, 22, 25)
(B) Criminal Proceedings - Abuse of Process - The court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants constituted an abuse of the process of law due to the mala fide nature of the allegations. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming ownership of a property, faced criminal allegations from respondent No.2, which were found to be baseless and motivated by a longstanding civil dispute. (Paras 2, 5, 19)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR were absurd and that the criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions, thus quashing the proceedings. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted a cognizable offence and whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. (Paras 20, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case against the appellants and highlighted the importance of preventing the abuse of legal processes. (Paras 20, 23)
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment and order quashed.
(B) Criminal Proceedings - Abuse of Process - The court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants constituted an abuse of the process of law due to the mala fide nature of the allegations. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming ownership of a property, faced criminal allegations from respondent No.2, which were found to be baseless and motivated by a longstanding civil dispute. (Paras 2, 5, 19)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR were absurd and that the criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions, thus quashing the proceedings. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations constituted a cognizable offence and whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. (Paras 20, 22)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case against the appellants and highlighted the importance of preventing the abuse of legal processes. (Paras 20, 23)
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment and order quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend criminal proceedings are mala fide and absurd as they filed the civil suits; State opposes the quashing of the chargesheet. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. Allegations are absurd as the complainant filed no suits to withdraw; complainant has a history of filing malicious, false cases due to civil disputes. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if they are manifestly mala fide, maliciously instituted for vengeance, or based on absurd allegations. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order, chargesheet, and summons quashed and set aside. (Para 25 )
6. Under what circumstances can a High Court quash criminal proceedings using its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
Proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, specifically when allegations are prima facie insufficient, do not disclose a cognizable offence, are absurdly improbable, legally barred, or maliciously instituted for vengeance. (Para 20 )
7. How does the court evaluate criminal complaints that arise from long-standing civil disputes?
Where criminal proceedings are activated by mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance due to civil disputes, and the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd, they are considered an abuse of the process of law. (Para 19 , 23 , 24 )
8. What impact does a complainant's history of filing false cases have on a petition to quash criminal proceedings?
A documented pattern of filing false and malicious cases against the same parties, evidenced by previous acquittals or quashed proceedings, supports the conclusion that the current proceedings are mala fide and intended to spite the accused. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 14th November 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 3850 of 2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) praying thereby to quash proceedings registered in C.C. No.29027 of 2010 pending on the file of IIIrd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (for short, “ACMM, Bangalore”).
2. A perusal of the materials placed on record would reveal that there is a longstanding dispute between the appellants on one hand and respondent No.2 and his brothers/sisters on the other hand. The appellants are the absolute owners and in actual possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.13 situated at Subbanna Char Lane, 2nd Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”). The suit property has fallen to the appellants on account of them being the legal heirs of one Smt. K. Janakamma. Respondent No.2 and his siblings are the legal heirs of one Shri Narasimha Murthy, who was a party to the sale deed executed on 16th November 1953 whereby the suit property was sold to said K. Janakamma.
3. It appears that respondent No.2 and his siblings thereafter attempted to encroach upon the appellants’ suit property and as such the appellants filed a civil suit being O.S. No.11107/2016 in Court of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore seeking a decree of permanent injunction to prohibit respondent No.2 and his siblings from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), also came to be filed by the appellants. In the said proceedings, the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, vide the judgment and order dated 19th December 2006, granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellants restraining respondent No.2 and his siblings from encroaching upon any portion of the suit/schedule property and from changing katha of suit property.
4. It further appears that the appellants thereafter filed another civil suit being O.S. No.1943/2008 in the Court of City Civil Judge at Bangalore for declaration of ownership of the suit property.
5. On 25th November 2008, respondent No.2 however lodged an FIR under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) alleging therein that the appellants had threatened respondent No.2 to withdraw the civil suits. In the said FIR, it was further alleged that respondent No.2 was threatened by the appellants that in case he does not withdraw the civil suits, he will meet with the dire consequence of his death.
6. On the basis of the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, an investigation was carried out and a chargesheet was filed by the PSI of Cottonpet Police Station on 24th March 2010.
7. On 26th June 2010, the ACMM, Bangalore took cognizance and issued summons to the appellants herein.
8. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the High Court praying to quash the criminal proceedings. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, though noticed that there was a longstanding civil dispute between the parties, refused to quash the proceedings and dismissed the criminal petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed the present appeal by way of special leave. While issuing notice, this Court by an order dated 8th May 2014 stayed the proceedings before the trial court for three months. By an order dated 28th November 2014, while granting leave, the interim order of stay was made absolute by this Court.
10. We have heard Shri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri V.N. Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing o
