Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section

200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners-accused criminally

trespassed into the subject property and tried to fence the

property and also abused the complainant in a filthy language.

The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable

under Sections 447, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2.

The petitioners-herein challenging the order passed

by the learned Magistrate of taking cognizance of the aforesaid

offences filed a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C

before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable. Hence, this

petition.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-

accused submit that the dispute between the parties is purely

civil in nature. However, the complaint is filed by respondent

No.2 as an after thought to harass the petitioners-accused and

wreak vengeance for having failed to obtain the order of

4

temporary

injunction

against

the

petitioners-accused

in

O.S.No.197/2008.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 submits that the allegations made in the

complaint clearly discloses the commission of offences as alleged

against the petitioners-accused and the learned Magistrate after

considering the material on record has rightly taken cognizance

of the aforesaid offences and the same cannot be faulted with.

5.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

6.

It is undisputed that the respondent No.2 had filed a

suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners-accused in

O.S.No.197/2008. During the pendency of the said suit,

respondent No.2 having failed to obtain the order of temporary

injunction

filed

the

private

complaint

alleging

that

the

petitioners-accused

criminally

trespassed

into

the

subject

property and abused him in filthy language which clearly implies

that the private complaint is filed as an after thought so as to

5

harass the petitioners-accused. The suit filed by the respondent

No.2 has been dismissed on 14.02.2012 and attained finality.

The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature,

however, given a criminal texture to wreak vengeance against

the petitioners-accused.

7.

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the

considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners will be an abuse of process of law, since

the possibility of the conviction of the petitioners is remote and

bleak.

8.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

The writ petition is allowed. Impugned proceedings in

C.C.No.1452/2017, pending on the file of the Additional Civil

Judge and Judge at Puttur is here by quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR