K.L. Wadane, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

2. Rule.

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

4. The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 19/2014 dated 8.8.2014.

5. Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:-

The petitioner is a co-owner in possession of a property, bearing survey no. 67/0 known as "TARIPANTO" situated at village Sanquem (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The suit property corresponds to new survey nos.60/1, 64/1, 67/0 and 68. The petitioner purchased the above suit property by sale deed dated 17.2.2004 from the predecessor in title namely one Mrs. Silvia Rebeiro Miranda; (2) Mrs. Edna Miranda e Souza, (3) Mr. Bruno Dias D'Souza and (4) Miss Maria Margarida Adeliade Rebeiro Correa de Graca Miranda alias Maria Margarida Miranda. Thus, the petitioner is absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The petitioner has subdivided the suit property and as of now has sold 60 plots from the suit property to the various persons. The respondent no. 3 claims to be agricultural tenant of the portion admeasuring 12125 square metres from survey no. 67/0. There is a litigation going on between the predecessor in title of the petitioner and the petitioner on one hand and the respondent no. 3 on the other hand.

6. The reference is required to be made to the litigation between the petitioner's predecessor in title and the father of the respondent no. 3 bearing Special Civil Suit No. 27/1977. In the aforesaid suit, the predecessor in title of the petitioner had applied for application for temporary injunction. The said application was rejected holding that predecessor in title of the petitioner are not in possession of the suit property. The petitioner's predecessor in title preferred Civil Appeal No. 52/1998 before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge by judgment and order dated 17.3.1978 was pleased to hold that the petitioner's predecessor in title have established their possession over the suit property. The Additional District Judge further held that the father of the respondent no. 3 failed to establish possession over the suit property. There is specific finding recorded that the predecessor in title of the petitioner are in possession of the suit property.

7. The respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 7 of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act for declaring him as a tenant of the suit property along with an application for temporary injunction under Section 8A of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. Mamlatdar was pleased to reject the ad-interim relief sought by the respondent no. 3. Thereafter the Mamlatdar was pleased to pass an order of status quo, therefore, the petitioner preferred Tenancy Revision before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector was pleased to set aside the order of status quo passed by the Mamlatdar. The respondent no. 3 herein had challenged the said order of the Deputy Collector before the Administrative Tribunal and the same is pending before the Administrative Tribunal.

8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 is trying to interfere with the suit property as a result, the petitioner has lodged several complaints to the police station, Sanquem. The respondent no. 3 is also lodging false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 is trying to trespass into the suit property and commit theft of cashew nuts. FIR bearing No. 19/2014 is registered against the petitioner on the fa