Criminal proceedings cannot persist when disputes related to property ownership are resolved through civil claims, especially when allegations are vague and unspecific.

ORAL ORDER :

This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 378/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 189(2), 191(2), 126, 329(3), 352, 351(2), 303(2), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The essence of the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 is that the petitioners herein have allegedly trespassed upon the disputed property measuring 28 guntas and have stolen arecanut to the extent of 10 quintals. Based on the written complaint, Crime No.378/2024 was registered.

3. The petitioners, asserting themselves as the lawful owners, seek quashing of the proceedings. They contend that Petitioner No.2, the alleged lawful owner, was dispossessed during the pendency of the injunction suit filed in O.S.No.192/2017. Accordingly, the petitioners argue that no question of theft arises. Given that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and that Petitioner No.8 has now instituted a suit for possession based on title in O.S.No.106/2025, the petitioners submit that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defacto complainant contends that the petitioners unlawfully entered the disputed property and committed theft of arecanut amounting to 10 quintals. It is submitted that the present case warrants a full investigation and is not a fit case for preemptive quashing, particularly as the investigation is at a nascent stage.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader also supports this position, submitting that the matter requires thorough investigation and no indulgence in the form of quashing is warranted.

6. Upon hearing the counsels, this Court notes that civil suits are pending between the petitioners and Respondent No.2/complainant. Petitioner No.8 had earlier filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.192/2017, asserting absolute ownership of the disputed property on the basis that it is ancestral property. Following trial, and having regard to the survey sketch, the court concluded that the complainant had encroached upon 28 guntas of land and accordingly dismissed the suit on the ground that Petitioner No.8 was not in possession of the property as per the survey.

7. Subsequent to the dismissal of the injunction suit, Petitioner No.8 has now filed a suit for possession based on title with respect to the disputed property. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph No.31 of the trial court judgment rendered in O.S.No.192/2017, which reads as follows:

"31. It is also worth to make note that the entire evidence available on record would clearly goes to show that the plaintiff was not aware about the existence of 26 guntas of suit property belongs to him in Sy. No, 148/3 until the survey conducted in the said property prior to he selling 1 acre 36 guntas of land to one Anith Kumar. It is further evident that, during the survey conducted in the suit property at the time of executing sale deed in favour of Anith Kumar, the plaintiff come to know about the existence of the suit property and the same is in possession of the defendant. It is further evident from the entire evidence that, plaintiff had every knowledge about the encroachment of the suit property very well prior to filing this suit. It is also established that, the plaintiff having full knowledge that, he is not at all in possession of the suit property has filed this suit only based on the revenue entries available in his name. Since the defendnat has rebutted the presumption available in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said revenue entries by lea