Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The court quashed FIR No.107/2008 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 448, 506, 511 IPC on grounds of abuse of process due to prior civil litigation losses and previous acquittals of related parties (!) (!) . - The petition contends that filing the FIR was to defeat vested civil rights after losing on the civil side up to the Supreme Court; the court agrees and holds continued proceedings would be abuse of process (!) . - There was prior litigation where Dharambir (father of complainant) and predecessor-in-interest of petitioners faced a similar allegation of criminal trespass, resulting in acquittals (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court’s earlier decision noted that the agreement to sell could not be enforced and that Dharambir lost the litigation up to the Supreme Court; this historical sequence influenced the judge’s view on abuse of process (!) (!) . - The judge explicitly states that filing the FIR is a mala fide attempt to defeat civil rights and grants quashing of the FIR and all proceedings (!) . - The matter involves possession disputes over land and whether allegations of forcible possession are being used to pressure relinquishment of rights already determined in civil proceedings (!) (!) (!) . - The decision rests on the principle that continuing criminal proceedings to litigate an issue already resolved against the complainant in civil litigation constitutes an abuse of process (!) . - The petition was filed under Sec. 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR, and the Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings accordingly (!) . - The case references earlier FIRs against Surjit Singh and others (predecessor-in-interest) that ended in acquittals, reinforcing the pattern of abuse in the present case (!) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?