The central legal point established is that a civil dispute should not be given a criminal color and should be resolved through civil litigation.

JUDGMENT :

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

1. The present applicant, in the present C- 482 Application, has put a challenge to the charge- sheet, and summoning order dated 06.05.2022, as well as, the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 3330 of 2022 (Case Crime No. 3 of 2022) “State Vs. Rajesh Kakkar and another”, which is presently pending consideration before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun, for allegedly trying the present applicant for his involvement in commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342, 452, 506 & 120-B of I.P.C.

2. To be precise, the parties to the proceedings, have already been under litigation in a prior instituted Civil Suit No. 839 of 2020 “Anup Singh Vs. Rajesh Kakkar”, in the suit thus instituted at the behest of the respondents, the principal relief, which was sought therein, though allegedly it was for the purposes of declaration, but in fact, if a judicial scrutiny is made to the relief sought, in fact, it was not a declaration of right in relation to a immovable property, described in the suit, but rather interpreted to be a declaration to be qua the alleged unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.09.1999, because, the modulation of relief, in the said suit, which was instituted on 14.08.2020, was formulated, as follows:

“The plaintiff prays as follows:-

(A) It be declared that by virtue of verbal arrangement and subsequent agreement dated 30.12.1999 detailed in the plaint, grant made and permission granted to the plaintiff in respect of the property fully detailed and described in the plan annexed to this plaint is irrevocable in view of the plaintiff having been granted the rights in the land subject matter of the aforesaid property and the plaintiff acting upon the licence has made constructions of permanent nature by incurring exorbitant and further that the plaintiff is entitled to peacefully and quietly hold, possess, use, enjoy and reside in the property during his lifetime and after him his heirs and the families of the heirs are entitled thereto in the same manner as the plaintiff.”

3. It chanced so, that an unforeseen event has chanced, on 29.12.2021, where it was alleged that present applicant along with his allies as referred to in the F.I.R. No. 3 of 2022 dated 15.01.2022, is said to have barged into the property, which was allegedly claimed to be occupied by the present respondent no.2, on the basis of the so called unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.12.1999.

4. At this stage, this Court is not going into a detailed scrutiny of the F.I.R., because all their inter se rights, is yet to be decided on merits in the pending suit, but the reference to the said F.I.R., is only made for the purpose because, the incident, which has been narrated in the F.I.R., which has been allegedly said to have chanced on 29.12.2021, has been taken as to be the basis for institution of the subsequent Suit No. 35 of 2022 “Anup Singh Vs. Rajesh Kakkar”, which was filed by the respondent no.2, wherein they have sought for the following relief:

“A. A permanent injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants and all persons claim through or under them for interfering in any manner in the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the property shown in green color in the plan annexed to this plaint and further from creating third party rights in the property shown in the annexed plain in violation of the terms of the agreement dated 30.12.1999 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1.

B. A mandatory injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to remove the iron fences fixed in between point B and C marked in the plan annexed to this plaint and to fix the said fence in between point A and B marked in the annexed plaint within a time to be fixed by the learned court and on failure of the defendants to do so, the said wo