The pendency of a civil suit does not affect the criminal proceedings, and both can proceed simultaneously. The Court also emphasized the limited scope of interference at the stage of quashing charges.

ORDER

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - By invoking the inherent power of this Court, the instant petition has been preferred by petitioner- Mamta Gupta u/S. 482 CrPC seeking relief for quashment of FIR vide Crime No.779/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Vidisha for offence under Section 447 IPC as well as charge sheet & other subsequent criminal proceedings pending before the Court of CJM, Vidisha (MP) in ST No.143 of 2019

2. Facts giving rise to present petition in short are that on 18/11/2018, respondent No.2 complainant Hari Babu Agrawal filed a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha stating therein that he is the owner of survey no.4/2, area 0.062 hectare situated at Sheopur Mujapta which comes within the Municipal limits and petitioner has encroached upon the said land by erecting a boundary wall. On that complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report was called for from Tahsildar as well as from Nagar Palika Vidisha. As per the report, it was found that petitioner could not produce any documents to prove her possession over disputed land. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against her vide Crime No.779/2018 for offence under Section 447 of IPC. Statements of parties were recorded and spot map was prepared. After analyzing the documents produced by parties and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of CJM. The Magistrate vide impugned order framed charges against petitioner under Section 447 IPC. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

(3) Challenging order of framing charges, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that earlier, a lease of aforesaid land was granted by the Government in the year 1961 in favour of petitioner's father and the same was remained in existence till 1995. The matter relating to continuation of aforesaid lease is also pending before the revenue authorities. The boundary wall erected over the land by the petitioner was prepared prior to dispute in question. At the time of erecting the boundary wall, the lease was in existence, therefore, no case is made out under Section 447 of IPC against petitioner. The learned Magistrate has committed a material illegality in framing the charge against the petitioner as complaint filed by respondent No.2 did not disclose any offence. It is submitted that the revenue authority i.e. Collector in its order has already observed that Khasra/Survey No.4, total area 2.081 is in possession of Ajiz Fatima Bee and there is no possibility to issue any proceedings by accepting the same land as Nazul land. It is submitted by Shri Mishra, that the dispute is of a civil nature and civil suit is pending between the parties, therefore, the veracity as well as genuineness of "Patta/lease" can be considered in the civil proceedings and since there is no encroachment by petitioner, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 447 of IPC. As such, the civil dispute is tried to be converted into criminal dispute which can be said to be nothing, but an abuse of process of law. The present petition is maintainable in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. NCT of Delhi and Another, reported in AIR 2013 SC 506 wherein, the Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the said judgment has observed as under:-

"15. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to