ORDER :

1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 0012/2023 registered at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu for offence under Sections 447 , 384, 34 IPC.

2. The facts in brief are that the a complaint filed by complainants-respondents was received through post at the office of Superintendent of Police, Churu along with investigation report of Additional S.P., Churu. In the said report, the Additional S.P., Churu drew his conclusion that the plot in question belongs to complainant Kailash Narayan Kandoi and this fact is fortified from the statements of Girish Agarwal, Kanhaiya Lal and Om Prakash. In the northern side of the plot in dispute, house of Jitendra Kumar Brahmin is situated and in the eastern side, plot measuring 181.25 sq. yards. of Late Vijay Kumar is situated. The petitioner showing himself adopted son of Late Vijay Kumar, is having possession over the plot of Late Vijay Kumar. On the basis of registered sale-deed, the petitioner is bent upon to make encroachment over the plot, purchased by father of complainant Kailash Narayan Kandoi, which is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner in the western side. It has been alleged that on 04.12.2021 the petitioner along with Jaiveer Jat, Anil Kumar Jat and Dara Singh Jat unauthorizedly entered into the plot of complainant and made certain encroachments thereon.

3. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 0012/2023 was registered for offence under Sections 447 , 384, 34 IPC against the petitioner and other accused persons.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the petitioner filed the present misc. petition for quashing of the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the FIR itself, it is clear that no offence alleged are made out against the petitioner as the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute since long and he has not made any encroachments over the land in dispute, but the complainant under the garb of the FIR wants to remove the possession of the petitioner from the land in dispute. Further, in respect of the land in dispute, the complainant filed a civil suit before the court of Civil Judge Taranagar and in the said civil suit, temporary injunction was not granted in favour of the complainant. Thus, the averments made in the FIR are absolutely false and the FIR deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Police thoroughly investigated the matter and also obtained the record from the Municipal Board, Taranagar in respect of the land in dispute and from the record, it was found that the land in dispute is recorded in the name of the complainant and the petitioner wants to trespass over the said land. The Police after investigation found the offences proved against the petitioner. In such circumstances, FIR should not be quashed.

7. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record.

8. The complainant submitted certain documents in respect of the land in dispute before the Investigating Officer. During investigation, the Police also obtained record of the land from the Municipal Board, Taranagar. In the record of the Municipal Board, the land in disputed is entered in the name of the complainant and the petitioner wants to trespass the land belonging to the complainant. The independent witnesses also gave statement that the land in dispute belongs to the complainant. Thus, prima facie, it is apparent that the Police, after investigation, has found the offences proved against the present petitioner, therefore, at the initial stage of investigation, it cannot be sa