This Criminal Application challenges the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC). Sattari at Volpoi, issuing process against the Petitioners in a complaint filed by the Respondent herein in Criminal Case No.20/P/2005 and the order of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court at Panaji in Criminal Revision Application No.89 of 2007. dated 5.3.2008.

2. The parties have been ll1volved in a series of litigation by and between them essentially of civil nature pursuant to they being neighbours in their professional work. The Petitioners as well as the Respondent have mining lease/mining concession of 2 adjacent mines, common boundary of which has caused serious disputes between them with regard to access to their respective mining areas.

3. This Application is not concerned with the legal rights, if any, of either of the parties in the mining lease/mining concession claimed by them, However, it would be important to set out and understand the various actions undertaken and orders obtained by both the parties since last 2 decades in respect of the rights claimed and the disputes that emanated for both of them.

4. The earliest dispute is reflected in a private Criminal Complaint filed by the Respondent in 1989 being private Criminal Case No.40/P/1989 in the Court of JMFC. Sattari at Bieholim, Goa. In the order dated 30.6.1989, Petitioner No.1 herein and one Shantaram Samant were discharged from the said case upon they giving undertaking to the Court not to interfere in the mining area claimed by the respondent called "Poriem mine". Criminal Case No.40/P/89 stood dismissed on 7.8.2003. The Respondent herein filed Contempt Petition No. 10 of 1999 in the said Criminal Case No.40/P/89. The Application of the Respondent for setting aside the dismissal order was rejected on 8.11.2004.

5. The Petitioners herein lodged the Complaint against the Respondent for having trespassed into the area of their mining Lease No.39/53 granted to M/s. H.L. Nathurmal Mines in Survey Nos. 72 to 80 of village Harvalem called "Harvalem Mine" i.e. the mming lease claimed by the Petitioners. Upon their complaint of trespass and intimidation, Criminal Case No.13/S/96/A came to be filed m the Court of the, IMFC at Bicholim, Goa. Under order dated 7.2.2002, the Respondent herein came to be convicted of the offences under Sections 447, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) upon the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution upon the complaint of the Petitioners relating to the acts of trespass as well as intimidation and threat being accepted by the learned Magistrate and upon the fact that the Respondent herein (the accused therein) did not produce any documents to prove that the area where he extracted iron ore and loaded into trucks belonged to him in any capacity showing 1m possession or his right therein or that he was operating that mine. The Respondent. being then 70 years of age, was released under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1956 after due admonition on 5.3.2002.

6. The Respondent herein filed yet another private Criminal Case being Criminal Case Nc.143/P/95, inter alia, ugainst one Atchut Usgaonkar, who WJ~ the Constituted Attorney of the Petitioners herein, inter alia, for criminal trespass and theft. The process was refused to be issued by the learned IMFC on 31.3.1998 against the said Constituted Attorney of the Petitioners [or want of any prima facie case in the complaint lodged by the Respondent and upon observing that the Respondent did not show any ownership rights or possession of the Poriem Mine in which he claimed to carry on certain mining operations for extracting iron ore under a mining concession bearing Title No.4/59 as the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Dahej Minerals Ltd.,

7. The Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.47/95/C in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Bicholim, Goa, against the Respondent restraining him from interfering in their mi