[2025:RJ-JP:44267] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3172/2014 1. Dinesh S/o Sagar Mal 2. Mukesh Chowdhry S/o Sagar Mal Both R/o Raigar Basti, Village Jahota, Tehsil Amer, Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P 2. Ashok Agarwal S/o Shri Niwas Mahajan, R/o 4/1/1. Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Anukram Singh Mr. Shubham Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/11/2025 1. In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the FIR No. 258/2014 dated 21.04.2014 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur Rural for the offences under Sections 380, 447 & 506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned FIR on the following grounds: (i). FIR has been lodged by the complainant maliciously as a counterblast to retaliate the FIR No. 141/2014 dated 10.03.2014 earlier lodged by petitioner against the complainant for offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 504, 427, 436, 379 & 166 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:44267] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3172/2014] (ii). There is long ongoing dispute between the petitioner and the complainant in respect of land bearing No. 1649 measuring 0.45 Hectare situated at Village Jahota, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur and one Revenue Suit No. 23/2014 has already been filed by the complainant Mr. Ashok Agarwal before the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Amer, District Jaipur, which is pending. In the aforesaid suit, it has been admitted by the complainant that the petitioners are in possession of aforesaid land since the year 2005. Thus, by way of filing the impugned FIR, the complainant has attempted to criminalize the civil dispute between the parties. (iii). Earlier also, the complainant caused ruckus and tried to forceably encroach upon the aforesaid land to disturb the possession of the petitioner and looking to the threat to peace, law and order, one notice under Section 145(1) of Cr.P.C. was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Jaipur (South) to the complainant, which also reveals that even the police authorities found that the complainant wanted to take forceable possession of the aforesaid land. Earlier also, the complainant was bound for maintaining peace vide order dated 24.10.2013 in proceedings under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. due to causing dispute in respect of aforesaid land. (iv). The facts mentioned in the petition are sufficient to lead inference that the root cause of dispute between the parties is regarding possession over the land bearing Khasra No. 1649 measuring 0.45 Hectare, Village Jahota and by way of lodging the impugned FIR, the complainant is trying to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners to negotiate and concede the civil/revenue proceedings in favour of the complainant, thus, the impugned FIR [2025:RJ-JP:44267] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3172/2014] is nothing bt sheer of abuse of process of law and is causing grave prejudice as well as miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 3. Despite service, nobody is present on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition and submitted that pursuant to FIR, police has investigated the allegations and cognizable offence is found to be made out against the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered. 6. It is settled proposition of law that the process under criminal law cannot be allowed to be misused so as to settle personal grudges or vengeance by criminalizing the civil disputes. In the instant matter, it is clear from perusing the material on record that the fundamental dispute between parties is in relation to possession of land bearing Khasra No. 1649 measuring 0.45 Hectare. In respect of the same land, for claiming possession, the complainant has already filed a revenue suit before the competent authority for possession and permanent injunction. Para 4 of the plaint (Annexure-8) would make it clear that the complainant himself has admitted that the petitioner has been in possession of the aforesaid land since 19.10.2005 and a prayer to eject him from the said land has been made. Thus, at the one hand, the complainant has taken recourse of civil/revenue proceedings for the purpose of getting possession, on the other hand, he himself tried to forceably enter into the land and to resist the same, one FIR No. 141/2014 was lodged by the petitioner against the complainant and others on 10.03.2014. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant on 24.04.2014, i.e. much after [2025:RJ-JP:44267] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3172/2014] lodging of FIR by the complainant. Thus, it is clear that the impugned FIR is nothing but a malicious attempt on the part of the complainant to counterblast the earlier FIR lodged by the petitioner. The other documents such as notice under Section 145 Cr.P.C. earlier issued by the Additional District Magistrate as well as order under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. would also lead to inference that the basic dispute is with regard to possession of land in question. 7. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following guidelines for the purpose of exercising inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. "(102). In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a [2025:RJ-JP:44267] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3172/2014] cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 8. In the light of above facts and in view of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the process of criminal law cannot be allowed to be misused for the purpose of relief, which can otherwise be granted in civil/revenue proceedings. In the instant case where, the revenue suit is already pending between the parties and after leading evidence, the [2025:RJ-JP:44267] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3172/2014] dispute with regard to possession can be adjudicated by the Competent Court. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case where it comes out that the petitioner is already in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 1649 measuring 0.45 Hectare, the allegations with regard to Section 447 of IPC are not prima facie made out and consequently, the accusation with regard to committing offence under Section 380 IPC are also not tenable against the petitioner. 10. Record of the petition also reveals apparent vengeance and malice on the part of the complainant, hence it is just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly FIR No. 258/2014 registered at Police Station Chomu for offences under Sections 380, 447/506 is hereby quashed and set-aside. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/45