IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 495 of 2008 Smt.Mamta and another …… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …… Respondents …….. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. As per the office report, respondent no. 3 has been served, but despite service, she is absent. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2, which I have perused. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am fully convinced that the lodging of the First Information Report by respondents 1 and 2 pursuant to the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. at the instance of respondent no. 3 was an abuse of the process of the Court as well as law because the dispute between the petitioners and respondent no. 3 with respect to the possession of the property in question is purely of the civil nature. The petitioners claim to be tenants of the property in question. As per their claim, they have obtained it on lease from the husband of respondent no. 3. The petitioners filed a civil suit in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar on 02.05.2008 and on that date, the said Court granted ex-parte ad interim status quo order in favour of the petitioners and against respondent no. 3, who was impleaded as the sole defendant in the said suit. It was after the filing of the said suit that 2 respondent no. 3 filed Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 05.05.2008, she discovered that petitioners have allegedly occupied the property in question and had committed other acts. In the light of the fact that the dispute with respect to the tenancy and possession of the property, allegedly occupied by the petitioners, was already pending before the Civil Court, continuance of the criminal proceedings with respect to this issue would be an abuse of the process of law as well as an abuse of the process of the Court. In the facts and circumstances, the Civil Court would be the best forum to decide the aforesaid issue. This petition accordingly is allowed. The First Information Report in question is quashed and set aside with all the consequences. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 18.08.2008 A