1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged FIR No.266/2020 for offences under S.354 and S.447 of IPC registered with Police Staton, Sadder, Srinagar.

2. As per the impugned FIR, on 08.11.2020 at about 3.00 pm, while the complainant was working in her land situated at Bye - pass Hyderpora, the petitioners came over there and they obstructed her from working in her field. It is being alleged that the petitioners hurled abuses upon the prosecutrix and when she objected to it, petitioner No.2, Showkat Ahmad Wani, pushed her, as a result of which the complainant fell down and her headgear also fell down, which amounts to outraging of her modesty.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that their predecessor - in - interest and the respondent, who happened to be his sister, were co - owners of the land measuring 01 kanal 15 marlas falling under Survey No.759/59 situated at Hyderpora Srinagar. It has been claimed by the petitioners that after the death of Shri Ghulam Rasool, their predecessor - in - interest, the petitioners being his legal heirs, are in possession of the said land since last so many decades. According to the petitioners, the private respondent, in order to grab the entire land, made an application before the Tehsildar concerned, who directed removal of name of the predecessor - in - interest of the petitioners from the Revenue Record. The said order came to be challenged by the petitioners before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated 24.01.2018 set aside the order of the Tehsildar and directed him to effect partition of the land in question. The order of the Tehsildar is stated to have been challenged by the private respondent in a writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition is still pending before this Court.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that the complainant thereafter tried to raise construction on the disputed land in June 2020 but the petitioners filed a civil suit before the Court of Civil Subordinate Judge, Srinagar, who vide order dated 04.07.2020, passed an interim injunction in favour of the petitioners which is still in operation. In the meanwhile, it came to the notice of the petitioners that the complainant and her daughter have executed a sale deed with regard to the disputed land on 15.05.2020 and the said sale deed was challenged by the petitioners by virtue of another civil suit which is pending before the learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo by the said court.

5. It is being claimed by the petitioners that the complainant has been trying to violate different orders passed by the Civil Courts and even an FIR came to be lodged against the grand children of the complainant in this regard. It is being claimed that the complainant has now lodged the impugned FIR with a view to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners as a counterblast to the aforesaid litigation by giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. It has been further contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR do not constitute an offence of outraging modesty nor do the same constitute an offence of criminal trespass.

6. The respondent - State has filed objections to the petition in which, besides narrating the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it has been claimed that during investigation allegations made in the impugned FIR, prima facie, stand established against the petitioners and the charge sheet has been prepared against them.

7. During pendency of the petition, the complainant, who was impleaded as respondent No.5 to the petition, has passed away.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the Case Diary.

9. As per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the petitioners are alleged to have committed two offences, one under S.354 and the other under S.447 of IPC. Before determining the question as to whether th