Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the State/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3 / complainant.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer :-

          "I. Allow the petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. and further be pleased to:

          II. Quash the First Information Report dated 07.04.2022 bearing Crime No. 0318 of 2022 registered at Police Station Supela, District-Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under 120-B, 147, 149, 294, 323, 327, 34, 448, 452, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioners.

          III. Quash the impugned final report dated 12.11.2022 bearing Final Report No. 880/20224 filed by Police Station, Supela, District-Durg (C.G.) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg (C.G.) against the petitioners for the offence 147, 149, 294, 323, 34, 448, 506(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against.

          IV. Quash order of cognizance dated 24.01.2025 offence under section 147, 149, 294, 323, 448, 506 (B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. RCC/430/2025 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg (C.G.)

          V. Grant any other relief (s) which may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of case in favour of petitioners."

3. The present petition arises out of a dispute concerning house bearing No. 13/7, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, which was originally owned by Late Ms. Pushpa Shrivastava and was let out to Respondent No.2/complainant vide rent agreement dated 29.11.2016. Late Ms. Pushpa Shrivastava had executed a Will dated 25.07.2014 bequeathing the property in favour of Petitioner No.1. After her demise on 28.10.2017, the property was mutated in favour of Petitioner No.1. According to the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 stopped paying rent from January 2019 and, despite repeated demands and notices, neither cleared the arrears nor vacated the premises. Several complaints and legal notices were thereafter exchanged between the parties. Respondent No.2 subsequently lodged a complaint alleging criminal acts against the Petitioners, pursuant to which an FIR was registered on 07.04.2022 on the basis of proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Petitioners contend that the criminal proceedings are a counterblast to the dispute concerning tenancy, arrears of rent and possession of the property. The Petitioners were also granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, vide order dated 13.04.2022.

4. The dispute regarding the property was also the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 44-A/2021 filed by Respondent No.2 before the learned Eighth District Judge, Durg, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025. Earlier, the Petitioners had challenged the FIR before this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 797/2022 and were granted interim protection; the petition was subsequently withdrawn on 06.05.2025 with liberty to challenge the final report/charge-sheet. Thereafter, Cr.M.P. No. 2092/2025 was also withdrawn on 07.07.2025 with liberty to file a duly constituted petition. The Petitioners have now approached this Court by filing instant petition challenging the charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned FIR, investigation and subsequent charge-sheet are a clear abuse of the process of law and have been instituted with an ulterior motive to pressurize the Petitioners in relation to the property dispute. The admitted documents, including the rent agreement, Will, mutation documents, notices and the judgment dated 08.01.2025 passed in the civil suit, demonstrate that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and relates to the landlord-tenant relationship, arrears of rent and possession of the property. The allegations of criminality have been introduced only as a counterblast after the Petitioners demanded payment of rent and vacation of the premises. It is further submitted that the complaint of Respondent No.2 was found during investigation to be connected with the dispute concerning the rented premises. The Petitioners had themselves approached the police authorities on several occasions regarding non-payment of rent and the refusal of Respondent No.2 to vacate the property. The subsequent criminal proceedings were initiated only after the Petitioners issued legal notices and took steps for recovery of rent and possession. Learned counsel further submits that the dismissal of the civil suit filed by Respondent No.2 vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025 materially supports the Petitioners' case regarding the nature of the dispute and the claim over the property. Learned counsel lastly submits that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and charge-sheet are taken at their face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the Petitioners. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would therefore serve no legitimate purpose and would amount to permitting Respondent No.2 to give a criminal colour to a purely civil/property dispute. The case of the Petitioners falls within the well-settled parameters governing exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing criminal proceedings where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide, are instituted for an ulterior purpose, or where continuation thereof would amount to abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom be quashed in the interest of justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that the FIR was registered pursuant to the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and, after investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet finding prima facie material against the Petitioners. It is submitted that the disputed questions relating to ownership, tenancy and possession are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings for quashing of the criminal case. Learned State counsel further submits that the grounds raised by the Petitioners involve disputed questions of fact and are required to be considered by the competent trial Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. Therefore, no ground for interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court is made out, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/complainant opposes the petition and submits that the FIR and subsequent charge-sheet disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences by the Petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are matters of evidence and cannot be examined in detail at the stage of quashing proceedings. He further submits that the Petitioners are attempting to give a purely criminal dispute a civil colour by relying upon the pending property/tenancy dispute and the judgment passed in the civil suit. The findings in the civil proceedings do not, by themselves, wipe out the criminal allegations or absolve the Petitioners from criminal liability. It is therefore submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed after investigation and the Petitioners have an efficacious remedy before the trial Court. Accordingly, no exceptional ground for exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

10. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the same time, where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or has been instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or for settling a civil dispute, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction. The principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, continue to hold the field. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated that the parameters in Bhajan Lal (supra) constitute the settled framework for examining a prayer for quashing.

11. In the present case, the admitted and undisputed chronology assumes considerable significance. The property was admittedly the subject matter of a tenancy between Late Ms. Pushpa Shrivastava and Respondent No.2. The Petitioners claim their right through the Will executed by Late Ms. Pushpa Shrivastava, followed by mutation in favour of Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, according to the Petitioners, Respondent No.2 stopped paying rent and did not vacate the premises despite repeated demands and legal notices. The Petitioners also approached the police authorities on more than one occasion regarding the said dispute. It is thereafter that the criminal complaint came to be instituted against the Petitioners.

12. More importantly, the very property dispute was independently carried before the civil Court by Respondent No.2 in Civil Suit No.44-A/2021 and the said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.2025. This subsequent development cannot by itself be treated as conclusive of the criminal allegations; however, when the entire sequence of events is examined cumulatively, it lends substantial support to the Petitioners' contention that the criminal prosecution has its genesis in the pre-existing dispute concerning tenancy, possession and enjoyment of the property.

13. This Court is conscious of the settled proposition that merely because a dispute has a civil remedy, criminal proceedings cannot automatically be quashed. A civil dispute may, in a given case, also disclose a criminal offence. The Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. , (2006) 6 SCC 736, has cautioned against both extremes: criminal proceedings should neither be quashed merely because a civil remedy exists, nor should criminal law be permitted to be used for settling scores or pressurising parties in civil disputes. The principles laid down therein have repeatedly been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

14. However, on examination of the FIR, final report and the surrounding circumstances placed on record, this Court finds that the allegations against the Petitioners substantially arise out of the dispute relating to the rented premises. The prosecution has invoked Sections 147, 149, 294, 323, 34, 448 and 506(B) of the IPC. The material placed before this Court does not disclose sufficient independent circumstances which would justify continuation of the prosecution for the aforesaid offences, particularly when the foundational dispute between the parties concerns the property, possession and tenancy thereof.

15. The objection of learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the allegations are matters of evidence and therefore the Petitioners should face trial, though generally correct, cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition. The inherent jurisdiction exists precisely to prevent abuse of the process of the Court where the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose. The Court is not conducting a mini-trial; rather, it is examining whether the criminal prosecution, on the material available and the admitted circumstances, deserves to continue. The Supreme Court has reiterated that while the High Court must not conduct a mini-trial, it can interfere where the foundational material does not justify continuation of the prosecution.

16. In the present matter, the cumulative effect of the circumstances is material: (i) the existence of a prior landlord-tenant relationship; (ii) the dispute regarding payment of rent and vacation of the premises; (iii) repeated complaints and legal notices exchanged between the parties; (iv) institution of civil proceedings concerning the very property by Respondent No.2; (v) dismissal of the said civil suit on 08.01.2025; and (vi) the absence of sufficient independent material demonstrating the alleged criminal acts apart from the property dispute. These circumstances persuade this Court to hold that continuation of the criminal prosecution would amount to allowing the criminal process to be utilised for what is essentially a dispute relating to property and possession.

17. The present case, therefore, falls within the principles recognised in Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly where criminal proceedings are found to be attended with mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive, and where continuation thereof would result in abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court has specifically emphasised that criminal courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not used for settling scores or pressurising parties to settle civil disputes.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The material on record, considered in its entirety, does not justify continuation of the criminal prosecution against the Petitioners, and permitting the same to continue would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

19. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR dated 07.04.2022 bearing Crime No.0318/2022 registered at Police Station Supela, District Durg, for offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 149, 294, 323, 327, 34, 448, 452 and 506(B) of the IPC, the consequential Final Report/Charge-sheet dated 12.11.2022 bearing Final Report No.880/2022, the order of cognizance dated 24.01.2025 and the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.RCC/430/2025 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, insofar as they relate to the present Petitioners, are hereby quashed.

20. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present criminal proceedings and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on any independent civil rights or remedies of either party, except to the extent already adjudicated by the competent civil Court. No order as to costs.