Criminal proceedings related to property disputes should be quashed when the issues are civil in nature to prevent an abuse of the legal process.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 338/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 329(4), 126(2) 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

2. The essence of the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is that the petitioners herein allegedly trespassed upon the disputed property measuring 28 guntas and unlawfully removed arecanut amounting to 20 to 25 quintals. On the basis of the written complaint, Crime No.338/2024 was registered.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1, and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader strongly resisted the petition, contending that since the charge sheet has already been filed, this case is not amenable to interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This Court, however, specifically directed both the learned High Court Government Pleader and the counsel for respondent No.2 to point out, from the charge sheet materials, any incriminating evidence supporting the commission of an offence under Section 303 of the BNS Act, 2023. Despite their efforts, neither was able to identify any such materials. The charge sheet merely records the seizure of an empty vehicle and a bike, allegedly used in connection with the alleged theft, but contains no direct evidence implicating the petitioners.

5. In view of the absence of any incriminating material, this Court considers it appropriate to extract paragraph 31 of the judgment rendered by the Civil Court 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 leading cogent evidence, the revenue records produced by the plaintiff will not come to his aid to establish his possession over the suit property. When the plaintiff himself know that, he is not at all in possession of the suit property, he cannot maintain this suit for the relief of permanent injunction."

6. On a careful reading of paragraph No.31, extracted supra, together with the survey sketch produced and marked in the civil proceedings, it becomes evident that respondent No.2/complainant has encroached upon the disputed extent of 28 guntas. The Civil Court, in O.S.No.192/2017 , declined to grant an order of injunction in favour of petitioner No.1 on the ground that he was not found to be in possession of the said land. The survey sketch clearly indicates that respondent No.2 is in p