Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3670 (HP)

Chaman Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-12-01

Virender Singh

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), for quashing the proceedings in case No. “UTR-CR/7021/2018”, titled as, 2025 : HHC : 41446 ‘ Smt. Bimla versus State of H.P. ’, initiated, at the instance of respondent No. 2, who has filed application, under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P.C. 2. By way of present petition, following substantive reliefs, have been sought: i) The present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the constitution of India may kindly be allowed and the proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 2 against the two cancellation reports i.e. against the "UTR-CR/7021/2018 titled as Bimla Kaul Vs. State of H.P.", by way of proceedings under Section 156(3) and order dated 25.11.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice. ii) That the respondent no. 2 may be held guilty for filing false affidavit and for suppression the material facts about filing of the Civil Suit no. 238/2014 titled as Narinder Kumar Vs Ved Prakash and others with the same set of facts, whereby declaration has been against the sale deed dated 20.09.2014(Annexure P-7) and also for possession Khasra No. 513 (Annexure P-6), now owned and possessed by the petitioner no. 1. iii) That the Ld. Trial Court may be restrained to continue with the proceedings in UTR CR/7021/2018 titled as Bimla Kaul Vs. State of H.P. till the decision of civil suit no. 238/2014 titled as Narinder Kumar Vs. Ved Prakash and others, which is fixed for defendants evidence on 18.02.2023, in the interest of justice. iv) That the Ld. Trial Court may be restrained to continue with the proceedings in UTR-CR/7021/2018 titled as "Bimla Kaul Vs. State of H.P." till the conclusion of trial going on before Ld. Judicial Magistrate First class Nurpur in FIR 166/2015 registered under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506, 188, 34 IPC against the respondent No. 2, Sh. Narinder Kumar (husband) and Sh. Navdeep Kaul(Son) who are witnesses in complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., (who have neither been got examined by complainant / respondent No.2 nor called by the court), till the pendency of this petition. Narinder Kumar (husband) and Sh. Navdeep Kaul(Son) who are witnesses in complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., (who have neither been got examined by complainant / respondent No.2 nor called by the court), till the pendency of this petition. v) That the complete record of the case No. UTR CR/7021/2018 titled as "Bimla Kaul Vs State of H.P. may called for kind perusal in view of the contents as explained in separate application filed with this petition.” 3. The aforesaid relief has been sought on the ground that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are residents of same village and neighbors to each other. The husband of respondent No.2, alongwith one another co- sharer, filed an application on 28.7.2003, for partition of land, bearing khata No. 6, khatauni No. 9, Khasra Nos. 518, 519, 521, 522, 524, 525, 529, 532 and 1142, situated at village Gayora, Mauza Chhatroli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. In the application, it has been mentioned that Abadi area be allotted according to share, because value of abadi area is more valuable. The said application was registered as case No. 32/NT/2003. The objections in the said application were filed by petitioner No. 3, by pleading that the subject matter of the dispute in the said case, does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector First Grade for partitioning the abadi area. As per the Jamabandi, the area, in question, does not fall within the definition of land. 4. Elaborating his stand, petitioner No. 3 has further pleaded, in the objection, that khasra Nos. 519, 521, 529, 530, 531 and 532 do not fall within the definition of land, as such, application for partition of above land, should not have been entertained. However, said contentions have been rejected by the AC 1st Grade, then by SDO (Civil), Nurpur and thereafter, by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. The said orders were challenged by petitioner No. 3 by filing Revision Petition No. 5/2011, bearing Cr. M.P. No. 9/2011, titled as, ‘Shanti Devi versus Sham Sunder & Narinder Kumar’. In the aforesaid Revision, the Financial Commissioner has stayed the execution and operation of order, passed by the Commissioner Kangra. 5. M.P. No. 9/2011, titled as, ‘Shanti Devi versus Sham Sunder & Narinder Kumar’. In the aforesaid Revision, the Financial Commissioner has stayed the execution and operation of order, passed by the Commissioner Kangra. 5. According to the petitioners, on 19.03.2013, the said Revision Petition was allowed by passing the following order: “In the instant case, it is clear that land which subject matter of partition comprises agricultural land and built up structures in the shape of house and atta chakki etc., the jurisdiction or Revenue Officer in partition proceedings is confined to agricultural land and such other lands which are defined as 'land', under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, while houses and other structures built-up on the agricultural land, cease to be land and do not fall within the definition of land within the meaning of land as defined in H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, unless the parties consent to a partition of the structures also. Therefore, the proper procedure to be adopted by the revenue courts would be to prepare a separate & joint khata of 'gair mumkin land', and confine the partition proceedings only to the cultivable land." 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that thereafter, the proceedings were again initiated in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeal), dated 19.03.2023, and partition proceedings were finalized, vide order dated 01.08.2015, and the orders were executed on spot. 7. The agriculture land stands partitioned and the abadi area, under khasra Nos. 519, 521, 522, 524, 535, 529, 530, 531 and 532, measuring 0-07-65 has been kept joint amongst all the co-sharers. 8. During the stay proceedings, none of the parties have claimed/alleged any family partition agreement, dated 30.06.1992. 9. As per the further case of the petitioners, petitioner No. 3 was also co-owner and in possession of Khasra No. 513, under khewat No. 73, Khatauni No. 182 with petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 was interested to purchase the share of petitioner No.3, and as such, application for demarcation was filed by petitioner No.1, alongwith all the adjoining owners, on 5.12.2013, for demarcation of land comprised in khata No.6, Khatauni No. 9, Khasra Nos.514, 515, 516, 517, measuring 0-04-19, alongwith Khata No. 72, Khatauni No. 183, Khasra No.153, measuring 0-04-62 HM and Khata No. 53 Khatauni No. 142 Khasra No.520, measuring 0-00-56 HM of Mohal Giora Mouza Chhattroli. The said application was allowed and on 30.12.2013, the revenue agency has demarcated the land, comprised in khasra Nos. 514-513-515-516-517-520. The said demarcation was not objected to by any of the owners/adjoining owners, as such, the same was finalized, on 15.01.2014. 10. Thereafter, petitioner No.2, being GPA of petitioner No.3 had executed the sale deed, bearing khata No.73, min khatauni No.182 and khasra No.513, measuring 0-04-62 HM situated at Mohal Giora Mouza Chattroli, as per Jamabandi for the year 2012-13, on 20.9.2014, in favour of petitioner No. 1. 11. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.2, as well as, his family members were aware about the boundaries of land, owned and possessed by Vijay Kumar and respondent No. 2, as such, they have decided not to challenge the demarcation, conducted on 30.12.2013, which was finalized on 15.1.2014, as husband of respondent No.2 Narinder Kumar, as well as, Vijay Kumar had appended their signatures, qua their satisfaction, about the demarcation. 12. After execution of the sale deed, dated 20.9.2014, petitioner No. 1 had started fencing khasra No. 513, solely owned by him, and respondent No. 2, on 21.9.2014 moved an application before the Police of Police Post, Gangath, against petitioner No. 1 that petitioner No.1 has damaged the water tap on 16.9.2014, installed by her, 23 years back, and according to her, petitioner No. 1 had also threatened to kill her. As such, she has prayed that the FIR be registered against him. 13. The matter was investigated by the Police and recorded the joint statement of respondent No 2, her husband and son. However, respondent No. 2, on the next day, appeared before the Dy.S.P Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. by moving application. Thereafter, on 22.9.2014, respondent No. 2 moved the complaint before the S.P. Kangra, alleging that SHO, Police Station, Nurpur, District Kangra, has not taken any action against petitioner No.1. The investigation conducted by the Police of Police Post, Gangath/Police Station Nurpur was withheld and even it was not mentioned that the statements of Smt. Bimla Kaul, Narinder Kumar and Navdeep Kaul were recorded on 21.9.2014. 14. The investigation conducted by the Police of Police Post, Gangath/Police Station Nurpur was withheld and even it was not mentioned that the statements of Smt. Bimla Kaul, Narinder Kumar and Navdeep Kaul were recorded on 21.9.2014. 14. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the information, obtained under the provisions of RTI Act, on 15.11.2024, application against petitioner No. 1 was moved by respondent No. 2, and thereafter, respondent No. 2 and her husband made a statement before the Police of Police Post, Gangath, on 21.9.2024. The said material fact has not been disclosed before the Dy.S.P. Nurpur, on 22.9.2014, as well as, before S.P., Kangra. 15. It is the further case of the petitioners that in the inquiry, it was found that neither the threatening to kill was given to Bimla Kaul, nor, the water tap was disconnected or damaged, in any manner, by petitioner No.1. The said report was further submitted to the higher authorities, on 25.10.2014. 16. As per the further case of the petitioners that despite the inquiry, respondent No. 2 was continuously pressurizing the Police of Police Station, Nurpur, for registration of the case, against petitioner No.1. When, respondent No. 2, came to know about the report dated 25.10.2014, forwarded to the Addl. S.P., Kangra at Dharamshala, she instead of disputing the contents of report dated 25.10.2014, has decided to move an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., against all the petitioners, including petitioner Nos.2 and 3, after five days and sworn in false affidavit, whereas, according to the petitioners, she has kept concealed the material facts. 17. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has annexed the photocopy of the agreement, the water bill, copy of sale deed, dated 20.9.2014, whereby she is alleging that she is having locus to file the complaint, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., whereas, according to the petitioners, name of respondent No. 2 has, nowhere, been figured, in the forged agreement, dated 30.6.1992, nor, the water tap bill shows her name, which is stated to be in the name of her son Vijay Kumar Kaul, who has appended his signatures, qua his satisfaction with the demarcation dated 31.12.2013, which was finalized on 15.1.2014. Even, in the complaint, which was moved after execution of the sale deed, dated 20.9.2014, respondent No 2 has withheld the material facts. 18. Even, in the complaint, which was moved after execution of the sale deed, dated 20.9.2014, respondent No 2 has withheld the material facts. 18. As per the further case of the petitioners, after annexing the sale deed, dated 20.9.2014, an attempt has been made to demonstrate that the sale deed is contrary to the agreement, dated 30.6.1992. 19. The statement, recorded on 5.4.2019 as CW-1 by respondent No. 2 was with the concealment of facts, as the same has been challenged in Civil Suit No.238 of 2014. All these facts have been pleaded to show that she is liable to be booked for perjury, for not disclosing the true picture. 20. An application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. is also stated to be filed by suppressing the material facts, and even, in the list of witnesses, names of Narinder Kumar and Navdeep Kaul have also been mentioned, however, respondent No.2, as well as, the learned trial Court has nowhere gone through the note, given about the registration of FIR No.298 of 2016, nor, directed the complainant to examine/record the statements of witnesses, mentioned, in the list of witnesses. 21. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 Narender Kumar Kaul, after three days, from moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereby sale deed dated 20.9.2014 was challenged and declaration has been sought qua the ownership of Khasra No. 513, in view of fabricated agreement, dated 30.6.1992, after suppressing the partition proceedings. 22. Both the Civil Suits, as well as, application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. have been filed with mala fide intention. Petitioner No. 1, after the sale deed dated 20.9.2014, moved an application for demarcation, as well as, for fencing purpose, which was not allowed to be conducted by respondent No. 2 and her family members. Thereafter, the Field Kanungo, Circle Nurpur, submitted one application to the Tehsildar with a request to provide the police protection for demarcating the land of petitioner No. 1, on 18.11.2014, for 20.11.2014. The said application was allowed, and demarcation was conducted on 20.11.2014, and the pillars and barbed wires were fixed. 23. Thereafter, the Field Kanungo, Circle Nurpur, submitted one application to the Tehsildar with a request to provide the police protection for demarcating the land of petitioner No. 1, on 18.11.2014, for 20.11.2014. The said application was allowed, and demarcation was conducted on 20.11.2014, and the pillars and barbed wires were fixed. 23. It is the further case of the petitioner that in Civil Suit No. 238/2014, alongwith CMA No. 289 of 2014 was allowed, in which, the following order was passed, on 21.11.2014: “In the mean while parties to the application are directed to maintain status quo qua with regard to raising of fresh construction over the suit land comprised in Khata No. 73 min, Khatauni No. 182, Khasra No. 513 to the extent measuring 15 feet x 80 feet as shown red in ABCD in the site plan annexed with the plaint out of total measuring 0-04-52 HM situated in Mohal Giora, Mauza Chhatroli, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, HP till further orders.” 24. Petitioners have further pleaded that husband of respondent No. 2/complainant, has violated the status- quo order, passed in CMA No. 298 of 2014 in C.S. No. 238 of 2014, by entering khasra No. 513 on 22.11.2022, and removed the barbed wire with cutter and damaged 7 pillars. Consequently, the matter was reported to the Police Post, Gangath, which, after investigating the matter, prepared the Kalendara, under Sections 107, 150,145 of Cr. P.C., against respondent No. 2 and her husband, alongwith other persons. 25. In view of violations of order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Divn), Nurpur, an application under Section 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC has also been filed, on 19.6.2015. 26. Not only this, on 19.6.2015, respondent No. 2, alongwith her husband and son again trespassed into khasra No. 513, owned and possession by petitioner No. 1 and damaged the constructed pillars. Consequently, FIR No.166 of 2015, dated 20.6.2015 was got lodged by the petitioners, against Narinder Kumar, S/o Ganga Ram, Bimla Devi, W/o Narinder Kumar and Navdeep Kumar, S/o Narinder Kumar. 27. As per the further case of the petitioners that the further attempt of respondent No.2 and his family members to implicate the petitioners, by way of filing complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., on 30.10.2014, which is stated to have been filed, by suppressing the material facts. 28. 27. As per the further case of the petitioners that the further attempt of respondent No.2 and his family members to implicate the petitioners, by way of filing complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., on 30.10.2014, which is stated to have been filed, by suppressing the material facts. 28. The complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as well as, FIR No. 298 of 2016 was investigated by the Police of Police Station, Nurpur. However, filing of Civil Suit No. 238 of 2014, as well as, registration of the FIR No.166 of 2015, dated 20.6.2015, against respondent No. 2 and his family members were never disclosed by respondent No. 2 to the Police. The factum of preparation of cancellation report has also been concealed. Even, in the affidavit in evidence, filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, by the husband of respondent No. 2, in Civil Suit No. 238 of 2014, he has admitted the factum of cancellation report against petitioner No. 1. 29. Not only this, Narinder Kumar has disputed his own signatures over the alleged agreement, dated 30.6.1992. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, on 20.4.2018, filed objections, against cancellation report and got recorded his statement, on 5.4.2019. In support of the objections, respondent No. 2 has appeared as CW-1 and deposed by suppressing the material facts. Consequently, the learned trial Court has passed the following order: “Taken up today from proper order. Heard. I have perused the contents of the complaint, statements of the complainants witnesses recorded in preliminary evidence and documents annexed herewith. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 427, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC, hence, cognizance in the matter is taken. Let accused persons be summoned for 28.1.2023.” 30. On the basis of above facts, relief of quashing has been sought. 31. When, put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed reply by taking preliminary objections that the present petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have no alternative and efficacious remedy. 32. Elaborating its stand, respondent No. 1 has pleaded that on 20.06.2015, petitioner No. 1 had given a complaint to the Police of Police Post, Gangath, stating therein that he had bought a piece of land, measuring one kanal and four marlas. 32. Elaborating its stand, respondent No. 1 has pleaded that on 20.06.2015, petitioner No. 1 had given a complaint to the Police of Police Post, Gangath, stating therein that he had bought a piece of land, measuring one kanal and four marlas. After few months, Narinder Kumar, alongwith his family members, damaged the fencing, erected by petitioner No. 1, upon which, a Kalandara was filed before SDM, Court Nurpur. A Civil Suit is stated to have been filed by Narinder Kumar, pertaining to the said land. However, on 19.6.2015, when, petitioner No. 1 was returning home, after attending the Court proceedings, then, at about 2:30 p.m., he saw Narinder Kumar, alongwith his family members, damaging the pillars and fencing and despite request, they did not stop, upon which, FIR No. 166 of 2015 was registered under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506, 201 and 34 IPC, with Police Station, Nurpur, whereas, on 27.9.2016, Bimla Kaul (respondent No. 2) filed a complaint, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., upon which, FIR No. 298 of 2016, has been registered with Police Station, Nurpur. 33. Thereafter, investigation was conducted and cancellation report was submitted, whereas, in FIR No. 166 of 2015, charge sheet, under Sections 447, 427, 504, 506, 201 and 34 IPC was filed before the Court of learned JMFC, Nurpur, which is pending adjudication. 34. Other contents of the petition have been denied. 35. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 36. As per the record, annexed with the petition, complainant Bimla Kaul has filed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., against the petitioners, forallegedly committing the offences, punishable under Sections 451, 427, 420 and 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The copy of the said complaint has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-9. It has been averred in the complaint that on 16.9.2014, accused No. 1 Chaman Singh entered/trespassed into the adjoining land and house of the complainant and uprooted the water pipe and tap, which had been installed by the complainant, about 20 years ago, and the same is stated to be in the name of Vijay Kaul, son of the complainant. 37. 37. It is the further case of the complainant that she, alongwith her husband, as well as, her son Navdeep Kaul, had objected to the act of accused No. 1, (petitioner No. 1), who threatened them to do away with their lives. She has further asserted that the land, from where, the tap was allegedly uprooted/damaged, is owned and possessed by the complainant, as per the family agreement, dated 30.6.1992, in which, accused No. 2 (Ved Prakash) was a party. Accused No. 2 Ved Prakash is stated to be the General Power of Attorney holder of accused No. 3 (Shanti Devi) and accused No. 2 Ved Prakash and accused No. 2 Shanti Devi hatched the criminal conspiracy with accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1) and uprooted the pipe and tap of the complainant, on 16.9.2024. 38. Thereafter, the matter is stated to have been reported to the Police of Police Station, Nurpur, on 17.9.2014, with a copy to Dy.S.P. Nurpur and SP Kangra at Dharamshala. The said complaint was marked by Dy.S.P. to Incharge, Police Post, Gangath, for taking action, but, the Incharge of Police Post, Gangath has not taken any step. However, he had assured the complainant that he will visit the spot and get the tap pipe restored. 39. Respondent No. 2 (complainant) has further alleged that accused Ved Prakash and Shanti Devi, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, got the sale deed executed of the land, in question, in favour of petitioner No.1, on 20.9.2014. She has further alleged in the complaint that accused Ved Prakash and Shanti Devi, executed the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1, after the police complaint, dated 17.9.2024. Lastly, she has alleged that accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1), in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, hatched with accused Ved Prakash and Shanti Devi, trespassed into the land of complainant, and uprooted the pipes and damaged the tap. 40 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that FIR be registered against the accused persons, under Sections 451, 427, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. 41. On the said complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Nurpur has passed the following order, on 20.9.2016: “Heard. Record perused. 40 On the basis of above facts, she has prayed that FIR be registered against the accused persons, under Sections 451, 427, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. 41. On the said complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Nurpur has passed the following order, on 20.9.2016: “Heard. Record perused. Out of the allegations made in the instant application, which is duly supported with an affidavit of the applicant, I am of the view that there exists a prima-facie cognizable case against the accused persons, so, as per prayer of the applicant/complainant, in the instant application u/s 156 Cr. P.C., the same is directed to be sent to SHO, P.S. Nurpur for being investigated in accordance with law. After registration and completion, record of this Court be consigned to the record room.” 42. Consequently, FIR No. 298 of 2016 was registered. Thereafter, criminal machinery swung into motion and investigated the matter. Thereafter, the cancellation report was submitted. The notice of the cancellation report was served upon the complainant (respondent No. 2), upon which, she has put appearance and filed objections. 43. Those objections are nothing, but, reiteration of the complaint, made by the complainant, upon which, learned trial Court has passed the order, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. 44. In paragraph 5 of the objections, the complainant has admitted that the revenue entries, on the basis of the alleged family settlement, were not changed, but, the possession of the land was with the objector/ complainant, since the date of family partition. Thereafter, she has appeared, in the witness-box and deposed, as per the objections raised and reasserted the fact that as per the family settlement, the land, which is subject matter of the dispute, had fallen into her share. 45. Apart from this, the complainant has also got recorded, in her statement, that the said agreement was also signed by accused No.2. Accused No.1, on 16.09.2014, has uprooted the tap. On this statement, on 25.11.2022, the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance and the accused persons were ordered to be served for 28.01.2023. 46. Admittedly, the alleged private partition has not given effect, in the revenue record. Only photocopy of the same has been produced, on record, which is mark-’B’. Accused No.1, on 16.09.2014, has uprooted the tap. On this statement, on 25.11.2022, the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance and the accused persons were ordered to be served for 28.01.2023. 46. Admittedly, the alleged private partition has not given effect, in the revenue record. Only photocopy of the same has been produced, on record, which is mark-’B’. In such situation, when the complaint, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC/objections filed by the complainant, against the cancellation report, are totally silent about the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 421, 427, 420, and 120-B of the IPC, then the documents, which have been annexed with the present petition assume significance, as those documents fall within the definition of admitted documents. 47. The suit for declaration was filed by husband of the complainant, in which, he has sought the declaration to the effect that Narinder Kumar (husband of the complainant) is owner-in-possession of the land comprising Khata No.73, Khatauni No.182, Khasra No.513, to the extent of 15 feet x 80 feet, as per the family settlement. 48. The suit has been filed, in the year 2014, in which, the Court of learned Civil Judge, Nurpur, had passed the order, directing the parties to maintain status quo, qua raising fresh construction, whereas, the application for partition, was, admittedly, moved prior to the filing of the said suit. The application for partition was moved by Sham Sunder and Narinder Kumar (Husband of complainant), by impleading accused No.3, as respondent. 49. In the complaint, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, the complainant has not bothered to mention even the Khasra number or other description of the land, from where, the water pipe and tap were allegedly uprooted by accused No.1. The complaint is totally silent, whether the suit land is portion of any khasra number or the same is in Abadi. 50. Not only this, when the police, after investigation, has filed, the cancellation report, and has categorically mentioned that the land, where the toilet and water tap installed, is owned by Smt. Shanti Devi, accused No.3. Despite the said fact, in the objections, which the complainant had filed, against the cancellation report, she has again given vague averments, with regard to the fact that the possession of the land, in question, is with the complainant. Relevant paragraph 5 of the objections is reproduced as under:- “5. Despite the said fact, in the objections, which the complainant had filed, against the cancellation report, she has again given vague averments, with regard to the fact that the possession of the land, in question, is with the complainant. Relevant paragraph 5 of the objections is reproduced as under:- “5. That the accused No.2 whose name existed as owner in revenue record and the accused being Power of Attorney holder of the accused No.3 got sale deed registered of the said land on 20.09.2014 which clearly shows that the criminal conspiracy amongst the accused person. It is pertinent to mention here that though the entries in revenue record were not changed after the family partition as per agreement dated 30.06.1992 but the possession of the land in question, at the spot was with objector/complainant since the date of family partition. The police has also recorded the statements of the witnesses to the agreement of the family partition.” 51. The complainant, in her statement, on oath, has not been given the description of the land and simply stated that the same is in her possession. When, there is no description of the land, then, how the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance of the matter, for the offence punishable under Section 451, 427, 420 and 120- B, read with Section 34 IPC, this aspect has not been explained by respondent No.3-complainant. 52. It seems that a civil dispute, qua the partition of the land, has given a colour of criminal proceedings, by moving a complaint, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, before the learned trial Court. 53. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra versus State of Uttarakhand and others , (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673, has held that where, a dispute is essentially of a civil nature, which has been given cloak of a criminal offence, High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court. Relevant paragraph 12 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal 31proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court”. 54. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Prof.R.K. Vijayasarathy and another versus Sudha Seetharam and another , (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 739 has held that it is the duty of High Court to examine, whether, a matter which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of a criminal offence and if, the required ingredients to constitute criminal offence are not made out, then, the same will be nothing, but, the abuse of the process of the Court. Relevant paragraph 27 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:- “27. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the actions of the first respondent constitute an abuse of process of the court. It is contended that the present dispute is of a civil nature and the first respondent has attempted to cloak it with a criminal flavor to harass the aged appellants. It is also contended that there is an undue delay in filing the complaint from which the present appeal arises, and this demonstrates the mala fide intention of the first respondent in filing the complaint against the appellants. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy. In that case, the prosecution alleged that eight of the accused had conspired to kill the complainant. The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that no sufficient ground was made out against the accused. A three Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by the State with the following observations:(SCC p.703, para 7)”. In that case, the prosecution alleged that eight of the accused had conspired to kill the complainant. The Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that no sufficient ground was made out against the accused. A three Judge Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal by the State with the following observations:(SCC p.703, para 7)”. “7…In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.” 55. In this matter, the police registered a case, as per the directions of the learned trial Court, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC. Thereafter, the police has investigated the matter and categorically mentioned, in the cancellation report that the land, where, the alleged tap was found, is in the ownership of petitioner No.3 Smt. Shanti Devi. Despite this fact, a plea of private partition, has been taken, in the protest petition, which has not given effect in the revenue record. This attempt voluminously demonstrates the intention of the respondent to clothe the civil proceedings with criminal proceedings. 56. In this case, the learned trial Court, without going into the allegations, as contained, in the complaint, has passed the order, under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, mechanically, and even after the police has submitted the cancellation report, learned trial Court again has not bothered to look into the averments of the complaint, whether any offence, for which, the complaint has been filed, is made out or not. 57. Although, in the petition, under Section 428 of the Cr.PC (528 of the BNSS), this Court is not supposed to conduct the mini trial, but, even from the documents, filed by the complainant, no case is made out against the accused persons. 58. 57. Although, in the petition, under Section 428 of the Cr.PC (528 of the BNSS), this Court is not supposed to conduct the mini trial, but, even from the documents, filed by the complainant, no case is made out against the accused persons. 58. Moreover, this case can be seen from another angle, as the petitioners have placed on record the order passed by the revenue authorities, upto level of Financial Commissioner, regarding the partition proceedings, in which, the Financial Commissioner, had remanded back the matter to Assistant Collector First Grade, Nurpur vide order dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P-3). Meaning thereby, the alleged private settlement has never been acted upon nor any efforts have been made to correct the revenue entries on the basis of the alleged family partition. 59. In view of the above, no case is made out from the complaint, protest petition, statement recorded, on oath, as well as, from the documents annexed with the petition. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 25.11. 2025 , is set aside.