ORDER : L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. Preface: The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is intended to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. The power is extraordinary and is exercised sparingly, yet, where the criminal process is demonstrably deployed as a weapon in a civil dispute, the Hon'ble High Court would be failing in its constitutional duty if it does not intervene at the threshold. 2. The present petition is one such instance, where a property dispute, already the subject of long-standing civil proceedings has spilled into a prosecution for alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC, on a factual foundation that appears fragile, inconsistent, and unsupported by independent material. Facts in brief: 3. The FIR in Crime No.67 of 2021 was registered by the first respondent police on 19.02.2021, based on a complaint dated 08.02.2021, alleging an occurrence on 07.02.2021. The FIR originally invoked Sections 294(b), 447, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. It is the petitioner’s case that the CSR entry was made only on 13.02.2021, the FIR was registered belatedly on 19.02.2021 and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22.02.2021. 4. The dispute revolves around immovable property which, according to the petitioner, forms part of ancestral property of late Ramanathan Nadar (maternal grandfather of the petitioner), devolving intestate. The petitioner asserts that his mother, late R. Sulochana Bai, had lawful entitlement as a co-sharer, and that civil litigation for partition has been pending since 1998 (O.S.No.199 of 1998; later O.S.No.265 of 2010), and presently the matter is stated to be pending in appeal as A.S.No.101 of 2023. 5. The petitioner’s further case is that the son of the de facto complainant (arrayed as L.W.2 in the charge sheet) purchased the disputed property on 30.12.2020 vide Doc.No.4103 of 2020, despite the pendency of the civil suit and public notices cautioning purchasers, and thereafter attempted to disturb possession and pressurise the petitioner to withdraw the civil proceedings. 6. The petitioner claims that he lodged complaints dated 22.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 08.02.2021 and 19.02.2021 against the son of the de facto complainant, but no CSR was issued to him and no effective action was taken. According to the petitioner, the impugned FIR is a counter blast engineered through influence. Case of the prosecution: 7. 6. The petitioner claims that he lodged complaints dated 22.01.2021, 05.02.2021, 08.02.2021 and 19.02.2021 against the son of the de facto complainant, but no CSR was issued to him and no effective action was taken. According to the petitioner, the impugned FIR is a counter blast engineered through influence. Case of the prosecution: 7. The prosecution version, as reflected in the FIR and final report, is that on 07.02.2021 the petitioner trespassed into the property claimed by the de facto complainant’s side, used obscene language, threatened with dire consequences (it is alleged a stone was thrown), and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC. Though the FIR included Section 427 IPC alleging damage to greens/crops worth Rs.1,000/-, the said section was dropped later and the final report dated 02.03.2023 confined the case to Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC. The charge sheet cites eight witnesses. L.W.1 is the de facto complainant; L.W.2 is his son (the purchaser of 2020 as per the petitioner); L.W.3 is the wife of L.W.1; L.W.4 and L.W.5 are mahazar witnesses; the remaining are official witnesses including the investigating officers. Cognizance was taken in C.C.No.339 of 2023 on 06.03.2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Nagercoil. Charges were framed on 23.11.2023. The matter is stated to be posted for trial. Case of the petitioner / grounds for quash: 8. The petitioner contends that the criminal case is an abuse of process and is intended to criminalise a civil dispute. The petitioner emphasises: (i) the pendency of partition litigation since 1998 and the petitioner’s asserted lawful connection to the property through his mother; (ii) the alleged belated registration and forwarding of FIR; (iii) dropping of Section 427 IPC and absence of substantiation for alleged damage; (iv) alleged admission in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 that no damage was caused; (v) absence of any recovery of the alleged stone/weapon; (vi) non-examination / non-citation of neighbours despite allegation of witnessing; (vii) contradictions among L.W.1 to L.W.3; and (viii) non-consideration of the petitioner’s prior complaints and alleged selective action. 9. The petitioner also places reliance on the fact that he was granted anticipatory bail on 24.02.2021 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2945 of 2021, and asserts that he explained the civil background and title/possession aspects to the police during investigation. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. 9. The petitioner also places reliance on the fact that he was granted anticipatory bail on 24.02.2021 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2945 of 2021, and asserts that he explained the civil background and title/possession aspects to the police during investigation. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that, (i) the final report discloses cognizable offences that the allegations relate to trespass, obscene abuse and intimidation; (ii) that the defence of civil title cannot be adjudicated in a quash petition; and (iii) that the petitioner must face trial where witnesses can be tested. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent would contend that the petitioner entered the property and threatened the complainant party, and that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not grant licence to intimidate or abuse. It is submitted that the charge sheet having been filed and charges having been framed, interference at this stage is unwarranted. 12. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. Point for consideration: 13. The point that arises for consideration is whether continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2023 arising out of Crime No.67 of 2021 would amount to abuse of process of Court, warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS? Analysis: 14. The inherent power is not an appellate power over investigation. This Court does not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence as in a full-fledged adjudication. Yet, where the allegations, taken at their face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, or are instituted to wreak vengeance / to settle civil scores, quash jurisdiction can and must be exercised. 15. Equally, the existence of a civil dispute does not automatically bar criminal prosecution. The true test is whether the criminal case has an independent criminal foundation, or whether it is a civil dispute dressed up as a crime to pressurise the adversary. 16. From the materials set out in the petition, it is not in dispute that there is a long-standing civil litigation relating to partition/title over the very property. The petitioner’s narrative traces the claim through late Ramanathan Nadar and his daughter (the petitioner’s mother), and asserts continued joint possession and enjoyment. 16. From the materials set out in the petition, it is not in dispute that there is a long-standing civil litigation relating to partition/title over the very property. The petitioner’s narrative traces the claim through late Ramanathan Nadar and his daughter (the petitioner’s mother), and asserts continued joint possession and enjoyment. The son of the de facto complainant is also stated to have been impleaded as a defendant in the civil suit on 01.09.2021 and is contesting the proceedings. 17. When a purchaser steps into a property already embroiled in litigation (as claimed by the petitioner), subsequent disputes on possession and enjoyment often generate cross-complaints. In such situations, the Court is required to be vigilant to ensure that the police process is not used as leverage to secure an advantage in the civil forum. 18. Criminal trespass requires entry into or upon property in the possession of another, with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. 19. In the present case, the core contest is possession and the right to enter, which is intertwined with the civil claim of co- ownership/joint possession asserted by the petitioner. Where the dispute on possession flows from rival claims of right in property pending adjudication, criminal trespass cannot be lightly inferred unless the prosecution materials prima facie establish exclusive possession of the complainant side and the petitioner’s entry as clearly unauthorised, coupled with the requisite criminal intent. 20. A perusal of the charge sheet as described indicates that the principal witnesses on occurrence are L.W.1 to L.W.3, who are members of one family and there is no independent witness cited, though the complaint itself refers to neighbours. The absence of independent witnesses, by itself, may not be fatal in every case; however, in a property dispute with admitted civil litigation, such absence assumes significance at the threshold. 21. Importantly, the charge sheet, as presented, does not indicate that any documentary material establishing exclusive possession of L.W.2 (the purchaser) was collected and relied upon as the foundational premise for “trespass”. In a case where the accused asserts a bona fide right of entry grounded in co-ownership/joint possession, the ingredients of Section 447 IPC cannot be permitted to be tried as a substitute for civil adjudication. 22. In a case where the accused asserts a bona fide right of entry grounded in co-ownership/joint possession, the ingredients of Section 447 IPC cannot be permitted to be tried as a substitute for civil adjudication. 22. To attract Section 294(b) IPC, the prosecution must show (i) utterance of obscene words, and (ii) annoyance to others, typically in or near a public place. Mere use of abusive language, without particulars and without the element of “obscenity” and its impact, is insufficient. 23. In the case on hand, the allegations are described as vague. The charge sheet appears to rest upon related witnesses (L.W. 1 to L.W.3). The complaint, as summarised, does not convincingly disclose the necessary particulars and setting to satisfy the offence under Section 294(b) IPC. In property quarrels, routine abuses are often alleged as an embellishment. Without minimal particulars, the continuation of this count would amount to allowing criminal law to be triggered by broad and subjective assertions. 24. Section 506(ii) IPC contemplates intimidation with threat of death or grievous hurt etc., of a nature falling within the aggravated category. The petitioner points out that no stone/weapon was recovered and that the witnesses do not consistently corroborate the intimidation narrative. 25. While recovery is not a sine qua non for intimidation, in a case where the threat is alleged by “throwing a stone”, the absence of any recovery, coupled with lack of independent corroboration and the admitted civil dispute background, renders the intimidation charge suspect at the threshold. When the material placed is of a nature where the criminal allegation appears to be an escalation of a property disagreement, compelling the accused to stand trial would itself become the instrument of harassment. 26. The FIR originally alleged damage of crops/greens worth Rs.1,000/-, but Section 427 IPC was dropped in the final report. This indicates that even as per the investigation, the allegation of damage did not survive. The dropping of one substantive allegation, though not determinative, lends weight to the petitioner’s contention that the initial complaint carried exaggerations. 27. The petitioner further asserts that the statement of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 admitted no damage, and that the alleged neighbours were not examined/cited. These aspects, in the overall factual matrix, reinforce the inference that the prosecution is not built upon a solid criminal foundation but is tethered to the civil rivalry. 28. 27. The petitioner further asserts that the statement of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 admitted no damage, and that the alleged neighbours were not examined/cited. These aspects, in the overall factual matrix, reinforce the inference that the prosecution is not built upon a solid criminal foundation but is tethered to the civil rivalry. 28. The petitioner alleges that he made prior complaints on 22.01.2021, 05.02.2021 and 08.02.2021 and even approached higher authorities on 19.02.2021, but no CSR was issued and no action was taken, whereas the counter complaint culminated in the FIR. The Court does not, in a quash petition, adjudicate inter se truth of rival complaints. Yet, the sequence is a relevant surrounding circumstance while assessing mala fides and abuse of process. 29. In the present case, (i) the civil dispute is long-standing ,(ii) the purchaser’s entry into the litigation landscape is recent, (iii) cross-allegations on trespass and threats are typical in such disputes and (iv) the prosecution materials (as projected) are largely from interested witnesses, with no independent witness cited despite reference to neighbours, and without demonstrable collection of foundational material on exclusive possession. 30. The net result is that the criminal case, if permitted to proceed, would transform the criminal Court into an arena for testing civil title/possession and pressurising the opponent, precisely what the inherent jurisdiction is meant to prevent. 31. This Court is satisfied that the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature, rooted in competing claims of right in immovable property already pending adjudication before the competent civil forum. The continuation of criminal proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2023, on the materials indicated, would amount to abuse of process and would serve as an instrument of harassment rather than a bona fide prosecution. Consequently, this Criminal Original Petition deserves to be allowed. 32. In the result , Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17273 of 2025 is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Nagercoil, arising out of Crime No.67 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police, for offences under Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC, are quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 33. 32. In the result , Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17273 of 2025 is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.339 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Nagercoil, arising out of Crime No.67 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police, for offences under Sections 294(b), 447 and 506(ii) IPC, are quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 33. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of this petition under Section 528 BNSS and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the pending civil proceedings. The parties shall work out their respective rights before the competent civil forum in accordance with law.