IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 387 Of 2005 1. Shrawan Singh @ Swarn Singh 2. Kuldeep 3. Kulwant Singh Applicant no.1 to 3 S/O Mani singh R/O Doodhla Dayalwala @ Tatwala P.S Shyampur, District Haridwar 4. Jagga Singh S/O Saada Singh 5. Himmat Singh 6. Viredra Singh 7. Sunder Singh Applicant no.3 to 5 S/O Jagga Singh R/O Village Chamariya Laldang P.S Shyampur, District Haridwar. 8. Harpal Singh 9. Paramjeet Singh 10. Dilip Singh Applicant no.8 10 S/O Karam Singh R/O Doodhla Dayalwala @ Tatwala P.S, Shyampur, district Haridwar ……………………..Applicants Versus 1. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, District Haridwar 2. Aatma Singh S/O Ganga Singh R/O Doodhla Dayalwala @ Tatwala P.S Shyampur, district Haridwar ……………………Opposite parties Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, present for respondent no.2/complainant Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought 2 quashing of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 80 of 2005 Aatma Singh vs. Smt Sadhna Tyagi and others, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 148, 120B, 398, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Shyampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit. (3) Brief facts of the case are that impugned criminal complaint was filed by complainant Aatma Singh (respondent no.2) alleging that the crop sown by him and his daughter in law was forcibly harvested by the petitioners, after they formed unlawful assembly and they took away the crop with them. The matter relates to Khasra No. 43 of Village Doodhla, within the limits of police station Shyampur in District Haridwar. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. It is pointed out to this court that before the Criminal complaint was filed, complainant’s daughter in law Ragbeer Kaur herself had instituted suit no. 172 of 2004 against petitioners no. 1 to 4 namely Shrawan Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Kulwant Singh and Jagga Singh before civil Judge Junior Division, Haridwar, in which an interim order was passed on 05.07.2004 directing the parties by maintain status-quo. Certified copy of said order is annexed as Annexure-6 to the petition. It is contended that it 3 is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to institute criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in the aforesaid circumstances. (5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this court finds that undoubtedly it is a case a civil dispute between the parties, in respect of Khasra No. 43 situated in Village Doodhla Dayalwala within the limits of police station Shyampur. It is also apparent from the contents of the complaint itself that a civil suit had already been filed by the complainant’s daughter in law Ragbeer Kaur, in respect of said property, who was claiming her title, as against the title claimed by the petitioners. It is stated in the criminal complaint (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition) that interim order protecting the possession of the plaintiff was passed on 07.05.2004. Said date appears to be a clerical error as from the Annexure-6, it is clear that interim order was passed on 05.07.2004. But the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C., show that not only the complainant but also the witnesses have stated that interim order was passed on 07.05.2004 which indicated that they have given the statement without caring to know what has happened in the suit. It is also pertinent to mention here that by the order dated 05.07.2004 possession of the plaintiff is not specifically protected. But the civil court has directed the parties by maintain status-quo which means if the defendants are in possession , their possession was not to be disturbed by the 4 plaintiff, and if the plaintiff was in possession his possession is not to be disturbed by the defendants. Apart from this contents of the complaint itself show that the harvesting crop was done by the petitioners in the presence of the police. (6) In the above circumstances, it appears that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the criminal proceedings, in a matter or civil dispute between his daughter in law and petitioners. That being so, this court is of the view, without prejudice the rights of the parties in civil litigation, the impugned criminal litigation are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 80 of 2005 Aatma Singh vs. Smt Sadhna Tyagi and others, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 148, 120B, 398, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Shyampur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.21.6.2010 N.P 5