A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2014 (reported as [2025] 2 S.C.R. 622 : 2025 INSC 202) raises whether criminal proceedings initiated by a private party were manifestly mala fide and therefore an abuse of process, warranting quashing under the Court’s inherent powers. The appellants, legal heirs and owners in possession of the suit property, had instituted civil suits for permanent injunction and declaration of title. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR under Sections 448 and 506 IPC alleging threats to withdraw a suit an allegation impossible on facts since respondent No.2 had filed no suit.

The trial court took cognizance. High Court refused to quash. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found a pattern of previous false and malicious complaints by respondent No.2 and his relatives, including an earlier criminal case where the allegations were found to be false and another instance where High Court had quashed criminal proceedings. Applying the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court held the FIR allegations were absurd, inherently improbable and vitiated by mala fides and ulterior motive.

The Court concluded continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and quashed the chargesheet, summons and all proceedings arising therefrom. This decision illustrates the narrow but real scope for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 to curb malicious private prosecution that masks civil disputes.

Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 448 IPC, Section 506 IPC, mala fide prosecution, abuse of process, Bhajan Lal, quashing power.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute is long standing and originates in competing hereditary claims to a city property at No.13, Subbanna Char Lane, Cottonpet, Bangalore. The appellants claim title as heirs of Smt. K. Janakamma and assert actual possession. Respondent No.2 and siblings, heirs of Shri Narasimha Murthy, allegedly attempted encroachment. The appellants filed two civil suits: one for permanent injunction (O.S. No.11107/2006) and one for declaration (O.S. No.1943/2008). The civil court granted temporary injunction on 19th December 2006. Despite being plaintiffs in litigation, respondent No.2 on 25th November 2008 lodged an FIR accusing appellants of threatening him to withdraw a suit and of threatening his life a contradiction because no suit by respondent No.2 existed. Investigation followed and a chargesheet was filed; the ACMM took cognizance and issued summons on 26th June 2010.

The appellants moved to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; High Court dismissed that petition. The Supreme Court granted leave and ultimately examined whether the criminal process was an instrument of vengeance and therefore amenable to quashing under the principles in Bhajan Lal. The record revealed prior instances where respondent No.2 and relatives had lodged false criminal complaints against the appellants, and at least one prior high court order quashing related proceedings. On that factual matrix the Court addressed whether continuation would amount to abuse of process.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants inherited and possess the suit property. They instituted O.S. No.11107/2006 seeking injunction against purported encroachment by respondent No.2 and siblings. The civil court granted interim relief restraining the respondents on 19.12.2006. Later the appellants filed O.S. No.1943/2008 for declaration of ownership. On 25.11.2008 respondent No.2 lodged an FIR under Sections 448 (house-trespass) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC, alleging threats by appellants to make him withdraw a suit and that he was threatened with death if he did not do so. Police investigated and filed charge-sheet on 24.03.2010.

ACMM took cognizance and issued summons on 26.06.2010. Appellants applied before High Court for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed. The appellants then filed SLP and interim stay was initially granted and later made absolute. The record showed respondent No.2 had earlier prosecuted criminal Case No.6969/2007 with similar allegations; the ACMM acquitted the appellants on 29.03.2008 finding allegations false. In another matter P.C.R. No.9345/2009, respondent’s brother alleged fraud in a sale deed; the High Court quashed those criminal proceedings on 8.09.2009. The cumulative history indicated a pattern of lodging criminal complaints stemming from the civil dispute rather than genuine criminality.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings filed by respondent No.2 disclose prima facie any cognizable offence?
ii. Whether the allegations in the FIR are absurd or inherently improbable on the face of the record?
iii. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process and is vitiated by mala fide or ulterior motive?
iv. Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the facts of this case?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellants contended the FIR was totally mala fide and based on impossible facts since respondent No.2 had not filed any suit and therefore could not have been asked to withdraw it.
ii. They argued the criminal prosecution was a revenge tactic to harass owners who had legally sought civil remedies and injunction.
iii. The appellants relied on prior orders which exposed respondent No.2’s habit of lodging false cases; these exhibited pattern and motive.
iv. They urged application of Bhajan Lal categories to quash proceedings as an abuse of process.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State opposed quashing and defended continuation of criminal process initiated upon an FIR and subsequent police investigation and chargesheet.
ii. The State relied on the regularity of investigation and cognizance by the Magistrate to contest premature interference under Section 482.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Section 482 Cr.P.C. — inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice.
ii. Sections 448 & 506 IPC — offences relied upon in the FIR.
iii. Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC — background interlocutory order granting injunction.
iv. Principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) (categories permitting quashing).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court scrutinised the record and found the FIR’s core allegations impossible on admitted facts. The appellants were plaintiffs in civil litigation seeking injunctive relief and had obtained an interim order restraining respondent No.2 on 19.12.2006. The complaint that appellants threatened respondent No.2 to withdraw his suit could not be reconciled with the documentary record because respondent No.2 had not instituted any rival suit. The Court therefore concluded the allegations were absurd and inherently improbable. The Bench placed significance on the prior pattern of vexatious complaints by respondent No.2 and relatives.

An earlier criminal prosecution by respondent No.2 (Case No.6969/2007) produced acquittal by the ACMM which held allegations false. Another related criminal prosecution by respondent’s brother (P.C.R. No.9345/2009) had been quashed by the High Court. Taken together these outcomes established that the present FIR arose from a long-standing civil quarrel and was concocted to harass. Applying paragraph 102 of Bhajan Lal, the Court found this case squarely within multiple illustrative categories: allegations that do not constitute offence even if accepted (point 1), allegations unsupported by evidence (point 3), allegations absurd and inherently improbable (point 5), and prosecutions manifestly mala fide and instituted with ulterior motive (point 7).

The Court emphasised the caution that quashing powers must be used sparingly; yet on the established facts the continuation of criminal process would be abuse of process. Consequently the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court order, the chargesheet C.C. No.29027/2010, the summons and all subsequent proceedings. The appeal abated as to one accused who died during proceedings. The decision reaffirms that where criminal process is a facade for private retaliation rooted in civil dispute, courts may and should intervene to protect liberty and prevent misuse of criminal law.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative ratio is that where the FIR’s allegations are absurd, incompatible with undisputed documentary facts, and where a pattern of prior malicious complaints exists, the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (and Article 226 principles) to quash criminal proceedings is justified to prevent abuse of process. The Bhajan Lal categories guide such exercise and were applied to find mala fides and ulterior motive.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated the caution in Bhajan Lal that quashing powers are extraordinary and to be used sparingly. It noted the courts should avoid probing the reliability of allegations at length but may act when allegations are manifestly improbable or bear indicia of malice. The observations stress balance: protect accused from vexatious prosecutions while preserving the investigatory role of police and magistrates.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Quashing warranted when FIR, even if accepted, does not disclose offence.
ii. Quashing warranted when allegations are inherently improbable on the face of record.
iii. Quashing warranted when a clear pattern of malicious, repetitive complaints appears.
iv. High Courts and Supreme Court must exercise Section 482 with restraint but can intervene to curb private vengeance via criminal law.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment is a robust application of the Bhajan Lal framework to facts showing a civil dispute weaponised by repeated criminal complaints. It aptly balances two imperatives: preventing harassment through malicious prosecutions and not usurping regular investigatory processes. The decision underscores that courts may look beyond the face of the FIR where documentary facts render allegations impossible. For practitioners, the case is a precedent to move for quashing when the complaint is premised on demonstrably false facts and there is prior misconduct by the complainant. It also signals litigants that criminal law cannot be used as a surrogate for civil redress or vendetta. The Court’s careful reliance on prior orders and findings provides the factual substratum necessary to invoke Section 482 without transgressing the cautionary note in Bhajan Lal.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2014, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 622 : 2025 INSC 202.

2. State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335.

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 448 & 506.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482.

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2.