The judgment established that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly and carefully exercised to prevent the abuse of the court's process and to ensure the administration of justice.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The instant petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arises out of a complaint titled as, "Bir Singh Vs. Romesh Singh and ors." filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners, as also the order dated 20.03.2017 passed therein by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court").

2. The case set up by the petitioners in the instant petition is that the father of the respondent herein, namely, Suram Singh had filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner No. 1 and his brothers in respect of the land measuring 04 Kanals and 18 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 470 situated at village Malpur, Tehsil and District Jammu on the ground that he being the successor-in-interest of one-Gairath Singh is in physical possession of the land and its possession thereof is being interfered with by the petitioner No. 1 herein along with his brothers. An interim order of status-quo dated 01.08.2014 is stated to have been passed in the application for interim relief, accompanying the said suit.

3. In the written statement filed to the suit by the petitioners herein, it is contended to have been stated that the father of the respondent herein and the father of petitioner No. 1, namely, Bhag Singh were the cosharers of a parcel land having been left behind by their common ancestor, namely, Gairath Singh and after his death, the land is stated to have been partitioned among all his successors-in-interest and by way of family partition, the land falling under Khasra No. 470 along with other parcels of the land is stated to have fallen to the share of the father of petitioner No. 1 and after his death, vested unto to the petitioner No. 1 and his brothers by way of family settlement. The respondent herein is stated to be neither the owner of the said land nor in possession thereof. It is contended to have been further stated in the said written statement by the petitioner No. 1 herein that the village Patwari had wrongly entered the name of the father of the respondent herein in Khasra Girdawari in respect of the said land and for correction of the same, an application came to be filed before the Tehsildar Assistant Collector 1st Class and Tehsildar, Bhalwal, who has passed an order under Mutation No. 1777, making necessary corrections incorporating the name of petitioner No. 1 instead of the father of respondent herein.

4. It is being stated further in the instant petition that the respondent herein filed false and frivolous impugned complaint, alleging commission of offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 RPC by the petitioners herein on false and frivolous grounds. The said impugned complaint is stated to have been entertained by the trial Court and also the statements of the complainant and his witness, namely, Gulab Singh recorded. However, issuance of process of law is stated to have been deferred by the trial Court while referring the matter to the SHO, Police Station, Kanachack for inquiry/investigation in terms of Section 202 Cr.P.C. A report is stated to have been furnished by the SHO, Police Station, Kanachack to the trial Court and the trial Court is stated to have not agreed with the said report and instead proceeded to not only record a finding with regard to the possession of the land in question held by the father of the complainant/respondent herein and the complainant/ respondent herein, but also issued a process thereof. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question of possession of the land in question has been subject matter of the suit filed by the father of the respondent herein and an issue thereof, has also been framed by the civil Court in this regard and in presence of the same, the trial Court ought not to have recorded a finding about the possession of the land held by the father of the respondent herein and that as s