Criminal and civil proceedings regarding the same subject matter can run concurrently, and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely due to the pendency of a civil suit, provided the complaint or investigative record prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of a criminal offence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

Heard Ms. R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This criminal petition has been instituted seeking quashing of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj in G.R. Case No. 198/2020 (PRC 90/2023) by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj took cognizance of the offence under Section 447/427/294/34 IPC against the petitioners as well as for quashing of all the subsequent orders passed by the order dated 11.01.2023, by the Learned Additional C.J.M. Karimganj, in the said case.

3. The Opposite party No.2/Respondent lodged an FIR before the Badarpur Police Station against the present petitioners alleging that on 21/01/2020 at about 12.30 p.m. the accused persons trespassed into the tilla land possessed by the complainant situated at Santi Niketan Road and damaged the trees and had tried to erect bamboo fencing. On protest by the complainant, the accused persons tried to kill him and used slang language. It was also mentioned in the FIR that regarding the disputed land, a case is pending before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court and there is a status quo order.

4. On the basis of the said FIR, the case was registered as Badarpur Police Station case No. 26/2020 under Section 447/427/294/34 IPC.

5. On the basis of the FIR, the Police Started investigation of the case and submitted chargesheet against the present petitioners under Section 447/427/294/34 IPC. On receipt of the case' record from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 11/01/2023 under Section 447/427/294/34 IPC against the petitioners and issued summons to them.

6. The complainant & 6 ors as plaintiffs had instituted a suit vide T.S. No. 136/1996 against the present petitioners before the learned Court of Civil Judge, (Jr.Div)-II, Karimganj praying for right title, interest and confirmation of possession of the suit land (which is also the land mentioned in the aforesaid FIR along with other reliefs and also for permanent injunction. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case is that their predecessor Late Harendra Kumar Ghosh, purchased the suit land by. a registered sale deed dated 08.10.1974 executed by the owner of the suit land, namely Binoy Bhushan Mazumder. They are accordingly in possession of the suit land from the time of their predecessors by constructing their residential houses over the suit land. The vendor of the predecessor of the plaintiffs, Binoy Bhushan Mazumdar, purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1974 executed by the predecessors of the defendant nos. 1 & 2, namely late Hari Bhajan Ghosh. On the other hand, executed a registered kabuliyat dated 30.12.1972 in respect of the suit land in favour of the proprietor of the suit land, namely. Matin Uddin Ahmed Choudhury, and accordingly the predecessor of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the suit land.

7. The case of the present petitioners as defendants is that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 were the owner of the suit land by virtue of jote right purchased by their predecessor from Sachindra Nath Bhattacharjee vide Registered Document dated 06/12/1969, got possession of the land and his name was recorded as tenant during the last settlement operation. The predecessor of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 also executed Kabuliyat vide Document No.3894 dated 30/12/1972 in favor of the landlord and had been in continuous possession of the suit land by growing fruit