N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Frocedure has been filed, seeking directions to quash the order of the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu dated 11.9.2003, taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 457 and 380, IPC.
(2.) The facts noticed from the record are that the subject matter of dispute was the ownership of 'Haveli' of late Devki Prasad. He filed a suit for ousting Vishwanath from the said premises as he was an encroacher. The said suit was decreed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu against Vishwanath. The appeal was preferred by Vishwanath before the High Court. The 'Haveli' was purchased by the petitioner - Sajjan Kumar by a sale deed dated 1.5.2002. He also got the possession of the said 'Haveli'. The 'Haveli' was demolished and the petitioner proceeded with the construction to raise the commercial complex. On 3.6.2002, Vishwanath filed private complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate, alleging therein that a theft was committed in his shop by breaking the southern wall of the shop with the help of 8 to 10 labours. Some articles were taken away from the shop. It was also alleged that the accused persons had taken forcible o possession of the southern portion of the shop. The complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., to the S.H.O., Police Station, Chirawa, The Police registered a case being FIR Case No. 205/2002 for offences under Sections 457 and 380, IPC . The Police found that a false and fabricated case was prepared by the complainant, with a view to settle the civil dispute. The complainant filed a protest petition. After recording the statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 457 and 380. IPC, by order dated 19.2.2002. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order, but the same was rejected by order dated 11.9.2002.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel that the subject-matter of the dispute is the "Baithak" of the "Haveli" and civil proceedings in that regard are pending in the High Court. The petitioners had succeeded n the suit. The Civil Court has held that the complainant in a instant case has unlawfully encroached upon the "Baithak" of the "Haveli". There is also a material to show that the possession of the land was given to the petitioners. It is submitted that the continuation of proceedings is not in the interest of justice.;