Point of law : In the, exercise of this. whole some power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the; ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

ORDER :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Mr. H.K.Patel, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent -State.

2. By way of this application, the applicants have prayed to quash the complaint being I-C.R.No.140 of 2011 registered with Mandvi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506(2) r/w. 114 of IPC and subsequent proceedings thereto.

2.1 The short facts leading to this petition are as under:-

Respondent No.2 namely Narpatsinh Harisinh Vashiya, residing at Darbar Faliya, Village Kosadi, Taluka Mandvi lodged a complaint against accused persons (present applicant) on 29th September, 2011 alleging that during 25.11.2011 to 29.11.2011, the accused persons came in company of 10 other persons at agricultural land bearing Block Nos. 138, 139, 212, 232, and 237 at village Umarsadi. As per the complaint, he had been cultivating this land from 1973 and he had obtained tenancy rights from the owner Dorabji Hormasji Munshi. It is further alleged in the complaint that similarly one Parsottambhai Lalabhai Prajapati had taken land bearing Block No. 150, 162, 165 and 167 under tenancy right from Dorabji Hormsji Munshi. That, original owner- Dorabji Munshi had appointed three executors for administration of the said land and therefore, they were cultivating in these lands since 1973 onwards as tenants. It is alleged in the complaint that before 2 ½ years, the Executors informed for sale of this land, and hence, proceedings before the Mamlatdar’s Office, Mandvi were initiated and they were pending. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had filed Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli and prayed for permanent injunction against Bhikhaji Ratanji Munshi and Jarin Sham Vadvadiya. That, another Special Civil Suit No. 25 of 2009 came to be filed in respect to the land bearing Block No. 150, 162, 165 and 167 situated at Umarsadi, Taluka Mandvi for permanent injunction against Bhikhaji Ratanji Munshi and Jarin Sham Vadvadiya before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli.. That, the applicant -Jarin Sham Vadvadiya had also instituted Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D), Bardoli against Bhikhaji Ratanji Munshi. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, in both the Special Civil Suits, dismissed the application (Exh.5) on merits by order dated 5.11.2011. As alleged in the complaint on 25th November, 2011 at about 5.00 p.m. the complainant and his brother were cultivating their land, at that time accused persons came to their land and threatened them saying that they were owner of the disputed land. Complainant was restricted to enter into the disputed land saying that if they would enter into the said land, they will kill them. Thereafter, complainant tried to enter into the disputed land up to 3.00 p.m. on the very same day but, he was threatened by the accused persons in company of 2 to 3 persons having stick of wooden. The crops lying in the land were destroyed and damaged to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. That, accused persons trespassed in the land under the possession of the complainant and damaged crops of more than Rs.5,70,000/- and threatened to kill them. Hence, this complaint was lodged by the complainant. Present petition is filed by the applicants accused persons under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 on 25th August, 2014, whereas Notice was issued by this Court [Coram : Mr. R.M.Chhaya, J] .

3. Heard Mr. A.D.Shah, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Virat G.Popat, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. H.K.Patel, learned APP for the respondent -State.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that in Civil Suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2009, the Civil Court has dismissed adinterim injunction application (exh.5) observing that defendant No.1 is in poss