A civil injunction's violation cannot be prosecuted under S.188 IPC as it requires public order, not civil court orders.

1. The petitioners have preferred the instant petition under S.482 Cr. P.C., read with Art.227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 24.03.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., passed in CMA No. 71 of 2022 in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2022, titled as Rashila Ram vs. Setha Ram and others and Criminal proceedings arising therefrom, i.e., Criminal Complaint No. 6 of 2022, titled as CJM, Kangra at Dharamshala v. Setha Ram and others, under S.195/340 of Cr. P.C., for the offence punishable under S.188 of IPC, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class - I, Kangra at Dhamshala, District Kangra, H.P., with a prayer to quash and set aside the same.

2. The facts of the case, which emerge from the records, are that the proforma respondent No.2 herein, being the plaintiff / applicant, filed a Civil Suit No. 28 of 2022 against the defendants (petitioners herein) before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., alleging that land bearing Khata No. 328, Khatauni No. 507, Khasra No. 1685/1204, measuring 00-05-23 hectares, situated at UP - Mohal Tangroti, Mauza Yol, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land") is jointly owned and possessed by the parties and the same has not been partitioned as yet. However, as per the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendants had started raising construction over the suit land by covering the specific and excess portion of the same. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, an application under O.39, R.1 and R.2, CPC was also filed by the plaintiff - respondent No.2.

3. On 09.03.2022, the learned trial Court had passed an ex parte ad - interim injunction order, whereby the petitioners / defendants were restrained from changing the nature or raising any construction over the suit land till disposal of the said application and the case was fixed for 22.04.2022. However, in the meantime on 11.03.2022, the plaintiff had filed two applications i.e. one under O.39, R.7, CPC for appointing local commissioner in order to inspect spot etc. and another application under S.151, CPC for providing police assistance. Replies to the applications were filed by the defendants / petitioners. However, vide order dated 24.03.2022 on the report of SHO, Police Station, Dharamshala, the learned trial Court concluded that the defendants / petitioners were disobeying the orders of the Court and had ordered to take action against them for the offence punishable under S.188 of IPC and had directed the Reader of that Court to prepare and file a complaint under S.195/340 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under S.188 of IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Dharamshala against the defendants for disobedience of orders of that Court. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendants, being the petitioners herein, have preferred the instant petition laying challenge to the impugned order dated 24.03.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is the result of mis - appreciation of facts and law, as the dispute inter se the parties is civil dispute and registration of criminal complaint against the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As per the petitioners, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without any jurisdiction and impugned order dated 24.03.2022 alongwith criminal proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed and set - aside.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for responde