1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 1104 OF 2008 (TILAK SRIPAD KAMALE & 2 OTH. VS. STATE OF MAH. THR.HOME DEPT. & 4 OTH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Usha Gujar, Advocate for applicants. Shri K.S.Dhote, A.P.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Shri S.P.Dhenge, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 22, 2009. 1. This application, for quashing proceedings under Crime No.6/2008, is being taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission, since the dispute is very small. 2. The applicant had approached the Civil Court in respect of a right of way. The Civil Court had granted an injunction whereby respondent No.1 before the said Court i.e. Kisan Hari Mahajan was restrained from interfering with right of way of the applicant of approaching to the house of the applicant from the disputed site till decision of the appeal. It is not disputed that this injunction is still in force. 2 3. According to Kisan Mahajan, such an injunction could not have been issued since there is a wall existing since 1990. However, this is irrelevant, since if there was a wall and if such injunction could not have been issued, remedy was available to said Kisan Mahajan to approach higher Court. If there is an injunction, which permits Tilak Kamale to use the way in dispute, the wall must give way and Tilak Kamale must be allowed to pass by that way in terms of the injunction issued by the Civil Court. Therefore, if Tilak Kamale did demolish the wall in order to exercise the right recognised in him by the Civil Court, he could not be said to have committed any crime. 4. When the parties are before the Civil Court in respect of a civil dispute about use of the property, recourse to criminal remedies is uncalled for. In spite of this, Kisan Mahajan filed a report before the police complaining about demolition of the wall, and it is strange that at the instance of a Law Officer in the office of Superintendent of Police, offence came to be registered. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the Reporter Kisan Mahajan. 6. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra Agrawalla, reported at (1996) 8 SCC 164, which enumerates the limitations of exercise of inherent powers by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that case the Court was not considering the situation similar to one in the present matter, where in spite of injunction by the competent Civil Court being in force a complaint was entertained, which would, in effect, nullify the injunction and allow the Police Officer to prosecute the person, who seeks to enforce the right recognized by the Civil Court. 7. The learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in M.A.M.Abdullah Vs. K.A. Qudus, reported at AIR 1976 J & K 23. It pertains to right of way under the Easements Act and it is not necessary to go into the question whether the applicant Tilak 4 Kamale had right to use the way or not, since that question is decided by the Civil Court at the stage of temporary injunction and the competent Civil Court or superior Courts exercising civil jurisdiction would be entitled to examine whether the applicant can enjoy the right of way or not. 8. Once there is an order of the competent Civil Court, which is not shown to have disturbed or set aside, it has to be obeyed and all the authorities in the Police Department are expected to ensure that the orders of the Civil Court are duly complied with. In any case, they are not expected to put spokes in implementing such orders. The adventure embarked upon by the Investigating Officer on the dubious advise of some Law Officer, in the office of Superintendent of Police, was totally uncalled for. The application is, therefore, allowed. F.I.R. is quashed. JUDGE RR.