Petitioners state that they are the owners of property

bearing Khata No.3397, Assessment No.2454 (old site No.283/2)

situated at Babbur village, Near N H - 4 Hiriyur Town

Chitradurga District. They lodged a FIR with the jurisdictional

police alleging that the respondent No.2 along with her son,

husband, her relatives and henchmen trespassed into their

property and by using excavation machine demolished the

building of petitioner No.7. The jurisdictional Magistrate

registered a case against respondent No.2 and others in Crime

No.209/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,

147, 427, 504, 506, 447, 149 of IPC.

4

2.

The 2^nd respondent as a counter blast lodged a FIR

against the petitioners alleging that petitioners criminally

trespassed into her land and abused them with filthy language

and threatened her with dire consequence. The jurisdictional

police registered the case in Crime No.210/2011 for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427, 504, 506 and

149 of IPC. The police after investigation submitted `B' report

to which the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition. Thereafter,

the jurisdictional Magistrate has registered a case against the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,

447, 427, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC and issued summons to the

petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

FIR was lodged by the 2^nd respondent as a counter blast to the

FIR lodged by petitioner No.7 against the 2^nd respondent for

criminally trespassing into their land and further causing damage

to the property by using excavation machine. He further

submits that the jurisdictional Civil Court had decreed the suit

directing the 2^nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for

5

having damaged to the property. Hence, he submits that the

cognizance taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate may be

quashed.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits

that the petitioner No.7 had lodged the FIR in respect of

property bearing Katha No.3397, Assessment No.2454 (old site

No.283/2) situated at Babbur village, Near N H - 4 Hiriyur Town

Chitradurga District. However, the FIR was lodged for criminal

trespass into the property bearing No.2728 which is not the

subject matter in O.S.No.5/2012. Hence, he submits that the

charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners

criminally trespassed into the property belonging to the

respondent No.2 and caused damages.

5.

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the

State reiterates the submission made by the learned counsel for

the respondent No.2.

6.

I have examined the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6

7.

It is undisputed that the petitioners had lodged FIR

registered as Crime No.209/2012 against the respondent No.2

for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427,

504, 506 and 149 of IPC for allegedly trespassing into land

belonging to the petitioners on 28.08.2011. The respondent

No.2 lodged the impugned FIR on the same day against the

petitioners-accused alleging that they had criminally trespassed

into his land on 28.08.2011 at 6.30 p.m. The FIR lodged by the

respondent No.2 is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the

petitioners-accused. The pendency of the suit between the

parties at the time of lodging of FIR clearly implies that the

dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature.

8.

The wife of the petitioner No.1 had lodged the FIR in

Crime No.220/2012 for the offence punishable under Section

468 of IPC alleging that respondent No.2 has forged the

municipal records by creating the documents in respect of site

No.64 which is alleged to be belonging to the respondent No.2.

9.

The Police after investigation submitted the charge

sheet

against

the

respondent

No.2

before

the

learned

7

Magistrate. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge

sheet has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 468 of IPC against the