Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings as Abuse of Process in Longstanding Property Dispute

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by P.M. Lokanath and others challenging the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 29027 of 2010 before the IIIrd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The appeal arose from allegations of criminal intimidation and house-trespass lodged by the rival heirs in a long-standing title and possession dispute over a property in Cottonpet, Bangalore.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and quashed the High Court order as well as the chargesheet and subsequent trial proceedings. The Court noted earlier civil adjudications including an interlocutory injunction in favour of the appellants and prior proceedings in which similar allegations by the complainant had been rejected. The Court relied on the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and concluded that the case fell within the categories permitting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We, therefore, find that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be nothing else but an abuse of the process of law." The judgment also recorded that one accused (appellant No.2) died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal stood abated qua him.

Background The dispute concerned a property at No.13, Subbanna Char Lane, 2nd Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore, which the appellants claimed as heirs of Smt. K. Janakamma by a 1953 sale deed. Respondent No.2 and his siblings, heirs of Shri Narasimha Murthy, repeatedly contested the title and allegedly attempted encroachments. The appellants filed civil suits — O.S. No.11107/2006 for permanent injunction and O.S. No.1943/2008 for declaration of title. The Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge granted temporary injunction on 19 December 2006 restraining respondent No.2 and his siblings from interfering with the appellants' possession.

On 25 November 2008 respondent No.2 lodged an FIR under Sections 448 and 506 IPC alleging threats by the appellants to withdraw unspecified civil suits and threats of dire consequences. Police investigated and a chargesheet was filed on 24 March 2010; the ACMM took cognizance and issued summons on 26 June 2010. The appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings; the Single Judge dismissed the petition on 14 November 2013. This Court granted special leave, stayed the trial and later made the stay absolute.

The Supreme Court recorded a pattern of repeated and allegedly frivolous criminal complaints by respondent No.2 and his relatives. The record showed that in an earlier criminal case (C.C. No.6969 of 2007) on similar allegations the ACMM had acquitted the appellants, and in P.C.R. No.9345 of 2009 the High Court had quashed other criminal proceedings initiated by respondent’s family. The Supreme Court found the allegations in the present FIR “totally absurd” and concluded that the prosecution was mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive to spite the appellants. Relying on the Bhajan Lal categories, the Court held that this was a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, allowed the appeal, and quashed the impugned High Court order, the chargesheet (C.C. No.29027/2010), the summons dated 26 June 2010 and all subsequent proceedings. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2514 OF 2014 (2025 INSC 202) Case Title: P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate (for State of Karnataka); Respondent No.2 – no appearance recorded