JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made to quash and set aside FIR No. 214, dated 18.9.2019 under Section 448 I.P.C. registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Shimla West, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

2. On 18.9.2019, respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint with the Police Station, West, Shimla, alleging therein that the petitioner, who is allegedly her tenant had misbehaved with her and had thrown out the cartons and grocery stuff from the store. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 had given said accommodation to the petitioner on goodwill but now he was claiming ownership and has put his lock on the room. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 448 I.P.C.

3. At this stage, Section 448 I.P.C. may be reproduced herein below:

"Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

4. Now adverting to the petition, it may be noted that the petitioner has sought quashing of aforesaid FIR on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature, since petitioner being a tenant in the premises, cannot be said to be a trespasser. It is further stated in the petition that the FIR in question has been lodged just to pressurize the petitioner to vacate the premises.

5. Respondent No. 4, who is present in the court, has stated that there is a civil dispute going on inter se parties but that is not qua the premises in which petitioner has allegedly committed trespass, rather same is with regard to some flat and as such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that civil dispute is being turned into criminal one, as is alleged by the petitioner. She reiterated the contents of FIR in the court also. Thus, from the conjoint reading of the contents of FIR, statement of respondent No. 4 and provisions of Section 448 I.P.C., at this stage, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and thus, the same does not call for an interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466 has specifically held that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1 Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not pri