ORDER :

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.425 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 456, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri V.Rangaramu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt Vijetha R.Naik, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

It is the case of the petitioners that lands in Sy.Nos. 32/1, 52, 61 and 42 totally measuring 7 acres and 35 guntas situate in Puttenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, were granted to their father one Sri Thimmarayappa by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore under the Inams Abolition Act. On the death of Sri Thimmarayappa, it is the claim of the petitioners that they have come in possession of the lands. Respondents 4 to 6 who were also claiming possession of the said lands had generated constant interference with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and in that light the petitioners had instituted a suit in O.S.No.8033 of 2014 before the civil Court which is pending consideration. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents 4 to 6 registered a criminal complaint against the petitioners invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.No.4155 of 2016. A prayer was sought by the respondents in the said complaint for an investigation at the hands of the jurisdictional police. Investigation having been ordered by the learned Magistrate, the police registered a FIR in Crime No.425 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 456, 466, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC. Upon registration of the crime and the police initiating investigation, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question the very registration of crime against them.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that the entire issue is purely civil in nature, since the petitioners have filed a suit against respondents 4 to 6 seeking permanent injunction restraining the complainants from interfering with the property of the petitioners. As a counter blast, the criminal complaint is registered in a case which is purely civil in nature. He would further contend that the private complaint so registered is not in compliance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, (2015) 6 SCC 287.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondents 4 to 6 would submit that the petitioners have come in possession of the property by generating forged documents. It is for that reason the complaint is registered notwithstanding the suit being filed by the petitioners seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents and would seek that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean in the same.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record and, therefore, are not reiterated. It is the case of the petitioners that their father Sri Thimmarayappa had acquired lands in the aforementioned survey numbers totally measuring 7 acres and 35 guntas in terms of an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 30-07-1975. Since Sri Thimmarayappa was the absolute owner of the said lands, on his death, the family members viz., the petitioners come in possession of the lands. It is the case of the petitioners that Sri Thimmarayappa had been cultivating the lands since 30 years and on his death, the petitioners are in possession of the property. The said Sri Thimmarayappa died on 22-08-1985. Wife of Sri Thimmarayappa, on the death of her husband, gave representations to the competent authority to effect khata of t