Criminal proceedings cannot proceed in civil disputes, aimed at preventing misuse of legal processes. Courts must ensure that only matters with substantial criminal allegations are pursued judiciously.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners, who are common in all these cases, are before this Court calling in question registration of crime in different crime numbers against these petitioners, while the offences remain common.

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

2.1. The complainants, in these cases, are said to have purchased different sites of Mantapa Village, Khata No.345/155/1-09, Hullahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk on 19- 04-2017. The petitioners/accused purchase property from the hands of one N.Bhagyalakshmi and one N.Nagaraju to an extent of 33 guntas in Survey No. 155/1 for certain consideration. The vendors of the petitioners later execute a confirmation deed on account of closure of a civil suit in OS No.452 of 2016 on 09-06-2022. Therefore, the petitioners purchase the property in Survey No. 155/1 to an extent of 33 guntas, which comes to be confirmed by the vendor, after the closure of the civil suit in OS No.452 of 2016. The petitioners, after the purchase of the property wanting to develop the property, are said to have demolished the compound wall on 10-11-2022. On the score that the property belonged to the complainants and the compound wall built up by the complainants was sought to be demolished by the present petitioners/the accused, the complainants seek to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police.

2.2. The jurisdictional police does not entertain the complaint on the score that the dispute was purely civil in nature and issues an endorsement accordingly. The complainant then approaches the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as obtaining under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also refers the matter to the very same police station, who again issue an endorsement that the matter is purely civil in nature and therefore, the police would not register the crime. The complainants then invoke Section 200 of the CrPC by registering private complaints against the present petitioners and seeks reference of the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The reference leads to registration of a crime against these petitioners in different crime numbers viz., Crime Nos.74 of 2023, 106 of 2023, 61 of 2023, 67 of 2023, 105 of 2023 and 62 of 2023 respectively, for offences punishable under Sections 384 , 406, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506B of IPC and under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in all these cases.

3. Heard Sri Manjunath B R, learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M. T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2/complainants, in all these cases.

4. The learned counsel Sri Manjunath B R appearing for the petitioners in all these cases would vehemently contend that the issue in the lis is purely civil in nature. The petitioners, after the execution of the sale deed, were wanting to develop the property and therefore have demolished the structures that were standing in the said property. The learned counsel submits, the petitioners having secured a sale deed and all the records standing in the name of the petitioners, are entitled to develop the property in the manner they wanted to. Therefore, he would submit that there can be no offence under Section 447 of the IPC or any other offences alleged against these petitioners. The learned counsel would