The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS prevents criminal prosecution from being used as a tool in a civil dispute, especially in cases lacking substantial criminal evidence.

ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is intended to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary and is exercised sparingly, yet, where the criminal process is demonstrably deployed as a weapon in a civil dispute, the Hon'ble High Court would be failing in its constitutional duty if it does not intervene at the threshold.

2. The present petition is one such instance, where a property dispute, already the subject of long-standing civil proceedings has spilled into a prosecution for alleged offences under Sections 294 (b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC , on a factual foundation that appears fragile, inconsistent, and unsupported by independent material.

Facts in brief:

3. The FIR in Crime No.67 of 2021 was registered by the first respondent police on 19.02.2021, based on a complaint dated 08.02.2021, alleging an occurrence on 07.02.2021. The FIR originally invoked Sections 294 (b), 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC . It is the petitioner’s case that the CSR entry was made only on 13.02.2021, the FIR was registered belatedly on 19.02.2021 and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22.02.2021.

4. The dispute revolves around immovable property which, according to the petitioner, forms part of ancestral property of late Ramanathan Nadar (maternal grandfather of the petitioner), devolving intestate. The petitioner asserts that his mother, late R. Sulochana Bai, had lawful entitlement as a co-sharer, and that civil litigation for partition has been pending since 1998 (O.S.No.199 of 1998; later O.S.No.265 of 2010), and presently the matter is stated to be pending in appeal as A.S.No.101 of 2023.

5. The petitioner’s further case is that the son of the de facto complainant (arrayed as L.W.2 in the charge sheet) purchased the disputed property on 30.12.2020 vide Doc.No.4103 of 2020, despite the pendency of the civil suit and public notices cautioning purchasers, and thereafter attempted to disturb possession and pressurise the petitioner to withdraw the civil proceedings.

6. The petitioner claims that he lodged complaints dated 22.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 08.02.2021 and 19.02.2021 against the son of the de facto complainant, but no CSR was issued to him and no effective action was taken. According to the petitioner, the impugned FIR is a counter blast engineered through influence.

Case of the prosecution:

7. The prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR and final report, is that on 07.02.2021 the petitioner trespassed into the property claimed by the de facto complainant’s side, used obscene language, threatened with dire consequences (it is alleged a stone was thrown), and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC . Though the FIR included Section 427 alleging damage to greens/crops worth Rs.1,000/-, the said section was dropped later and the final report dated 02.03.2023 confined the case to (b), 447 and 506(ii) . The charge sheet cites eight witnesses. L.W.1 is the de facto complainant; L.W.2 is his son (the purchaser of 2020 as per the petitioner); L.W.3 is the wife of L.W.1; L.W.4 and L.W.5 are mahazar witnesses; the remaining are official