Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner and other co-owner had purchased the plot, bearing No.49 from the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, by means of sale deed dated 1.8.1996 (Annexure P2). In pursuance thereof, the mutations (Annexure P3 to P7) were sanctioned on 23.8.1996 in favour of petitioner. It was also claimed that after the death of Surjit Kaur, he had also purchased the share of her son Rajinder Singh, in pursuance of power of attorney (Annexure P8) and sale deed (Annexure P9). Narinder Singh son and Neelam daughter, other heirs of Surjit Kaur, filed the civil suits (Annexure P10 & P13), with regard to the same property, in which, status quo/stay orders (Annexure P11 & P14) were passed. The contempt petition (Annexure P19) was filed for violation of the stay orders. The petitioner has also filed the civil suit (Annexure P20) against Narinder Singh and others. It was alleged that on 29.11.2006 since Ajay Puri tried to trespass into his premises, so, the incident was reported to the police. However, the matter was stated to have been comprised and ASI Pal Singh submitted his report (Annexure P24) in this respect.

2. According to the petitioner that instead of awaiting the final outcome of the long protracted civil litigation between the parties, Ajay Purl son of Raj Kumar, claiming himself to be a property dealer and alleged attorney of Kamal Kishore and Indira Rani, lodged a criminal case against the petitioner on the allegations that on 28.11.2006, when they visited and entered into the premises in dispute, then they found that the petitioner has put his own lock by breaking the lock and stopped them from entering into the site in question. In the back ground of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.383 dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure PI) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 427, 448 and 511 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, in the manner depicted herein be­fore.

3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the registration of the criminal case and preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure PI) and all other sub­sequent proceeding arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. interalia on the grounds that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and subject matter of civil suits mentioned hereinabove. Since the petitioner is owner and in possession of the property in question, so, question of committing the indicate offences did not arise at all. It was claimed that the complainant has lodged a false report in or­der to take revenge and put pressure on the petitioner, which is abuse of process of law. According to the petitioner, no offence whatsoever is made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR and all other sub­sequent proceeding arising therefrom in this relevant connection.

4. Faced with the situation, the respondents refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed the reply, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner has committed the indicated offences. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure PI). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to