Civil Dispute Over Property Cannot Be Transmuted Into A Criminal Prosecution Under SC/ST Act Or BNS: Karnataka High Court

"The genesis of the dispute, its substratum and its entire fulcrum are unmistakably shrouded in the colours of civil law. A dispute that was born in the civil Court and continues to breathe there cannot, by a mere sleight of allegations, be given the garb of criminality and transported into the precincts of criminal law." Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a pre-existing civil dispute concerning title and possession of land cannot be converted into criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’) or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

A bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that criminal law cannot be weaponized as a "pressure tactic" to secure outcomes that remain sub-judice before a competent civil court.

The petitioners were accused in a private complaint (PCR No. 1/2025) alleging offences under the SC/ST Act and the BNS, following a dispute over land in Sy. No. 21 of Mahanthalingapura Village. The complainant, claiming ancestry to the original grantees of the land, alleged that the petitioners had demolished 'samadhis' (burial sites) of her ancestors, cut down trees, and hurled caste-based abuses. Notably, the parties have been engaged in multiple civil suits (O.S. No. 1094/2016 and O.S. No. 1052/2023) regarding title and possession for several years, with proceedings currently stayed by the Supreme Court.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether a criminal prosecution can be sustained when the core dispute is a civil lis involving title and possession. The court also examined whether the allegations satisfied the mandatory statutory ingredients for offences under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act, specifically the requirement of an act occurring in a "place within public view," and the elements of criminal trespass under Section 329 of the BNS.

Civil Dispute as the Foundation

The court emphasized that the petitioners' possession is supported by registered sale deeds and prior judicial compromises, while the complainant’s title claim remains unadjudicated. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the complainant had initially approached the police, who rightly closed the matter as a civil dispute, leading the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to bypass this finding.

Court Explains Statutory Ingredients of the SC/ST Act

The bench underscored that not every dispute involving a member of the Scheduled Caste automatically constitutes an atrocity. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, the court clarified that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) requires intentional insult or abuse in a "place within public view." Because the incident was alleged to have occurred on the disputed private property, the "public view" element was conspicuously absent.

No Metamorphosis of Private Property

The court pointedly remarked that a photograph of worship provided by the complainant could not, by mere assertion, transform a stone into a "samadhi" or an object held in "high esteem" under Section 3(1)(t). The court held that without a definitive civil decree, the complainant could not establish the necessary legal standing to allege defilement or obstruction of burial grounds.

Criminal Process Cannot Be a Counter-Blast

The court observed that the criminal complaint was filed nearly a month after the alleged incident and served as a clear counter-blast to the petitioners' ongoing civil litigation. Quoting Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., the bench reminded that courts have a duty to "lift the veil of embellishment" to ensure the criminal process is not being used to settle scores.

"The criminal process cannot be permitted to become a weapon in the hands of a disgruntled litigant to settle scores emanating from a civil dispute."

Finding that the allegations were "loosely laid" and failed to satisfy the foundational ingredients of any criminal offence, the court allowed the criminal petitions. It quashed the FIR in Crime No. 90/2025, stating that allowing the investigation to proceed would be a manifest abuse of the process of law. The court clarified that these observations were strictly for the purpose of the quashing petition and would not influence the pending civil suits.

Date of Decision: 28 August 2026