Civil Dispute Can Still Involve Criminal Acts If Violence Is Alleged: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash FIR

In a detailed decision Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving allegations of house trespass, abuse, and assault linked to a dispute over car repair charges. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that even if a matter has civil undertones, the commission of cognizable offences involving violence warrants criminal prosecution and cannot be quashed at the threshold stage.

The Court held that “civil nature of dispute does not bar prosecution for acts involving violence and criminal trespass,” and observed that the allegations disclosed prima facie commission of offences under Sections 451, 504 and 34 IPC. Accordingly, the plea to quash FIR No. 40 of 2022 lodged at Police Station Shimla (West) was rejected.

“Garage is a Place of Property Custody; Unlawful Entry with Assault Preparation Attracts Section 451 IPC”

Rejecting the petitioner’s submission that the garage was a public place, Justice Kainthla observed that the garage clearly functioned as a space used for the custody of property (i.e., vehicles), and thus satisfied the statutory definition under Section 451 IPC, which criminalizes house trespass with preparation for causing hurt or assault.

The Court drew support from the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Richard (2008 SCC OnLine Kar 45), holding that “even a police station or office can qualify as a place used for custody of property, thus attracting Section 451 when criminal trespass is coupled with assault or threats.”

In the present case, it was alleged that the petitioner, along with two others, entered the complainant’s garage armed with sticks, abused and physically assaulted the garage owner, and threatened him over a monetary dispute relating to car servicing charges. The Court observed that these allegations, taken at face value, clearly satisfied the ingredients of the offences alleged.

“Exercise of Section 482 CrPC Must Be Reserved for Rare Cases of Clear Abuse or Injustice”

The Court extensively relied on the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., and Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, reiterating the well-settled position that Section 482 CrPC is to be invoked sparingly and with great caution.

Quoting Bhajan Lal, the Court emphasised:

“High Courts in exercise of their extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should act to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice—but not to short-circuit genuine criminal proceedings based on cognizable offences.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner did not challenge the framing of charges and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated to justify invoking Section 482. It held that once the Trial Court has framed charges, interference by the High Court should be limited only to cases of gross abuse of process, which was not made out here.

“Mere Delay, Absence of Medical Report, or Contradictions in FIR Not Grounds for Quashing”

On the petitioner’s argument that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s holding in Punit Beriwala v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 983) to clarify that:

“Delay in reporting an offence, especially in interpersonal or retaliatory disputes, is not in itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings. Whether the explanation for delay is plausible is for the trial court to determine.”

As for the absence of a medical report, the Court again dismissed the relevance of this contention at the quashing stage, ruling that:

“The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, cannot assess the sufficiency or admissibility of evidence. That is strictly within the domain of the trial court.”

Similarly, minor inconsistencies in the FIR or the witness’s police statement — such as whether sticks were carried — were deemed insufficient to discredit the FIR at this stage. The Court observed that:

“Even if some falsehood is detected, it does not invalidate the entire FIR, as the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply to Indian law.”

“Civil Motive Does Not Negate Criminality If Acts of Violence Are Alleged”

One of the key defences raised was that the underlying dispute was civil in nature — i.e., a disagreement over the cost of car repair. The Court, however, was firm in rejecting this line of reasoning, stating:

“Even if a monetary dispute existed, the allegations that the petitioner entered the garage with accomplices, armed with sticks, and assaulted the complainant, indicate conduct that goes beyond the realm of civil litigation and crosses into criminality.”

Quoting from Ramveer Upadhyay v. State of U.P. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 484), the Court noted:

“Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely because the complaint arises from enmity or civil disagreement, as such circumstances often provide the motive for the crime itself.”

FIR Discloses Cognizable Offences—Trial Must Proceed

Justice Kainthla concluded that the petition lacked merit, the allegations in the FIR were not inherently improbable, and the matter required full trial. The Court observed:

“It is impermissible to quash the FIR and the proceedings on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. Whether the evidence is ultimately reliable or adequate can only be decided at trial.”

Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, with a direction that the Trial Court proceed uninfluenced by any observations made in the High Court’s ruling.

Date of Decision: 29 October 2025