The High Court has the authority to quash criminal proceedings when allegations are improbable and do not constitute an offense, especially when they arise from civil disputes.

ORDER :

1. Heard Smt.Pooja R Savadatti, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T.Hanumareddy, the learned AGA for respondent-State.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3. Qua accused No.1, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101496/2021 disposed off on 26^th March 2024, had quashed the proceedings. The same reads as follows:

“1. The petitioner who is accused No.1 calls in question registration of crime in Crime No.134 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and pending before the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Dharwad.

2. Heard Sri Jagdish Patil and Smt. Pooja Savadatti learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served long ago, remains unrepresented.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant and the petitioner is accused No.1. The father of the petitioner institutes a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2012 against the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Hosategur, Dharwad District and the Tahsildar, Dharwad. The said suit was for permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit was instituted on a cause of action that the 1st respondent/defendant had entered the suit premises with some of its panchayat Members on political motive and started obstructing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The obstruction to peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property is with regard to the entry of the property to be belonging to the Gram Panchayat and directing eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land. The suit is decreed by an order of the Court on 02-08-2012 holding that the property belongs to the plaintiff, the father of the petitioner. The Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and the Tahsildar filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree in R.A.No.182 of 2015. The Regular Appeal comes to be allowed by an order of the First Appellate Court on 23-11-2015, setting aside the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid O.S.No.131 of 2012 and remanding the matter back to the concerned Court. The complainant is one who has set up certain shops in the area which is the subject matter of squabble between the Gram Panchayat and the family of the petitioner. On 21-11-2019 an incident is said to have happened in Sy.No.542 of the village. The background to the said complaint is that, in Sy.No.542, about 20 years ago, six shops were rented out by the Panchayat, out of which one shop was rented out to the family of the complainant. It is alleged that on 21-11-2019 at about 5.30 p.m. the petitioner along with others come to Sy.No.542 in the village and hurled abuses and created ruckus. This becomes a crime in Crime No.134 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences. The registration of crime is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court, in terms of its interim order dated 23- 03-2022, had interdicted further investigation on the ground that the incident is said to have taken place in Block No.542 or Sy.No.542 of Tegur village, which was not existence in the village at all.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition with particular reference to the complaint so registered by the complainant and the remand request. The learned counsel would submit that nothing is found in the complaint. All that the complaint narrates is events that have happened in Sy.No.542. The remand request also indicates that it has happened in Sy.No.542. Sy.No.542 is not even existing in the village is the endorsement given by the Village Accountant. Insofar as the offence alleged concerning Arms Act, the allegation found is that he has removed the pellets and fired in the air. He would submit