IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf pf the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR No. 98/2015 dated 01.04.2015 registered at Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur Rural for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 34 of IPC.

2. The allegations in the impugned FIR are that the complainant/respondent No. 2-Prakash Chandra Mehta, who happens to be the owner of a plot bearing Patta No. 1971 dated 08.02.1955, claimed to have purchased the said property from the successor of its original owner through a sale-note dated 22.09.1995. There are allegations that the petitioner with the assistance of other accused persons had trespassed the land in the midnight of 29.03.2015 and caused damage to the stones, slabs etc. lying on the plot in question. So also there are allegations that abusive language was used by the trespasser.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the impugned FIR and the other material as made available to this Court.

4. It is revealing that one patta of a plot situated at Khejarla Road was issued in the name of one Ramvilas and after his death, his brother Ramniwas filed an application for mutation of the said plot in his name in the revenue record as the owner Ramvilas had no issue. The Municipality Pipar City issued a certificate dated 02.07.1999 in the name of Ramniwas. Presuming ownership of the above plot in his name, Ramniwas executed power of attorney in favour of one Omprakash, who happened to be the husband of petitioner.

5. There seems to be a civil litigation also pending in between the parties. One Padam Singh claiming himself to be legal hair of Ramvilas has also filed a civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur for cancellation of sale-deed executed in favour of Laxman Singh, Hanuman Ram and the petitioner-Chota Devi in the year 2008. In the said suit, the complainant/respondent No. 2-Prakash Chandra Mehta is also a party. Vide order dated 23.04.2008, the learned Civil Court has stayed the further alienation of the land and on 11.02.2013, an order of status quo has also been passed in the application filed along with the said suit.

6. There seems to be a bona-fide dispute between the parties. Until the learned Civil Court adjudicates the proprietary rights of the parties regarding retention of the possession, any assumptions regarding having possession by any party may prejudice the decision of the Civil Court and affect the interest of the parties.

7. Be that as it may, as on date, it cannot be said with utmost certainty that which party was in possession of the property in question, upon which an offence of trespassing has been alleged. There may be bona-fide claims of both the parties.

8. This Court is guided by the principle of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 04.09.2009 rendered in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2010 AIR SCW 405 (Criminal Appeal No. 1695/2009). For ready reference the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Second respondent herein filed a complaint against appellants 1 to 3 (accused 1 to 3) and two others before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, alleging that he was the owner of Katha No. 715 Khasra No. 1971 and 1973 admeasuring 1 bigha, 5 Katha and 18 Dhurs; that the first accused who had no connection with the said land and who had no title thereto, had executed two registered sale deeds dated 2-6-2003 in favour of the second accused in respect of a portion of the said land measuring - 8 Khatas and 13 Dhurs; and that the third, fourth and fifth accused being respectively the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds had conspired with accused 1 and 2 to forge the said documents; and that when he confronted accused 1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused him and hit him with fists and told him that he can do what he wanted, but t