The principle of abuse of process was applied, considering the petitioner's established possession of the disputed land and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations in the FIR.

S.S.Grewal, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read Article 227 of the Constitution of India relates to quashment of First Information Report No. 186 dated 28-10-1988 registered at Police Station District Bathinda, under Section 379 of the IPC and consequent proceed taken thereunder.

2. In brief, as per allegations in the impugned First Information Report, the land of Ravinder Singh complainant is situated near the home of Kuldip Singh petitioner and others. According to the complaint, land measuring 2 Kanals comprised in Khasra No. 29/23/1 belonging to Kuldip Singh petitioner, continues to be in possession of the accompanied. On 27-10-1988, Kuldip Singh petitioner, who is an Advocate, complainant by 10/15 persons stole Bajra crop from the aforesaid land. The crop was harvested and then taken away in a trolley on the which first information report was lodged. On the same day, Gutm Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Sita Singh informed the complainant about said incident. It was farther alleged in the first information report Kanungo in his Nishan Delhi report dated September 8, 1988 has also mentioned that the complainant is in culminating possession of the said and as such Kuldip Singh petitioner has committed an offence punishment under Section 379 of the IPC.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

3. Admittedly, there was civil litigation pending between the with regard to the land-in-dispute. The suit filed by Kuldip Singh petitioner for grant of permanent injunction was decreed by Sub Judge 1st of Phull, on August 5, 1987 to the effect that Kuldip Singh alongwith is in possession of the land in dispute comprising Khasra No. 29 as well as some other land and Ravinder Singh and other defendants, suit, were restrained from interfering in the possession of Kuldip Singh and others over the land-in-dispute. Copies of judgment Annexure and P/2 clearly show that Kuldip Singh petitioner was owner in posse of the land in dispute. The appeal filed by Ravinder Singh and the against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn on 23rd August, by Additional District Judge, Bathinda.

4. On behalf of the complainant, reliance has mainly been placed the report of the Kanungo, Mansa Kalan, dated September 8, 1988, wherein it is mentioned that out of Khasra No. 29/23/1 land measuring 1 K 13 Marlas was cultivated and in possession of Ravinder Singh, where and in negligible area cotton crop was standing,

5. For the purpose of quashment only the allegations made in first information report have to be taken on their face value as to where such allegations in law constitute, or spell out any offence and that recent to criminal proceedings would in the circumstances amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or not, as held by the apex Court in State Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, AIR 1989 S.C.1.

6. It is nowhere mentioned in the impugned first information report as to how the complainant came into possession of the land-in-suit, after the judgment and decrees passed by the Civil Courts, referred to above Nor it is specifically mentioned that the complainant had sown the crop on the land in dispute, which was subsequently alleged to have been taken away by Kuldip Singh petitioner. The report of the Kanungo cannot in any manner, change or modify the rights of the parties determined the civil Courts judgments, referred to above. In view of the civil Courts judgments, it is quite apparent that Kuldip Singh petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute at the relevant time. As such he could not commit any theft in respect of Bajra crop standing on his own land. Thus, it would also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court in case proceedings on the basis of the impugned first information report are not quashed.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned first information report and consequent proceedings taken thereunder against the petitioner are directed to be quashed an