V. S. DAVE, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. petition has been field on behalf of the accused petitioners in Criminal Case No. 36/84 Beharilal vs. Ramotar pending in court of the Addititonal Chief Judical Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana with prayer to quash the proceedings pending against them.
(2.) THERE is a chequered history of litigation between the parties in the instant case as is borne out from the complaint it self. The complainant non petitioner's case starts with the compliant filed on 28. 02. 1983 for an incident alleged to have taken place on 16th February. 1983 wherein the complainant stated that in Neem-ka-thana town, he owned a half constructed shop near Kapilmurti in Kapil Mandi Adjecent to his shop of Gyarsilal, which is on rent with Ramotar accused, is situated. About this half constructed shop, a suit was filed by plaintiff against Gyarsilal and Ramotar for permanent injunction wherein accused No. 1 filed a reply to the effect that land belongs to Gyarsilal and on this a docree was obtained on 6. 05. 1976. THEREafter, on 28. 12. 1977. Ramotar trespassed into the shop, damaged and removed the debries for which the complainant Prabhulal filed a report before the Police on which the accused persons were charge-sheeted for offence u/ss. 147, 448, 427 and 379, IPC. Again there was some litigation as Gyarsilal placed hurdles and Ramotar raised some objections which were dismssed on 22-12-1976. THERE was yet another complaint filed for offence under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC where in a charge-sheet was filed against Ramotar by the Police. One more objection of the execution of the decree was raised by Ramotar on 1-8-1977 which too was rejected. Ramotar, however, with the connivance of the Administrator, Municipal Board. Neem-ka-thana wrongfully obtained a patta and raised yet another objection on that strength which too was rejected on 15-10-1980. The Patta was obtained by playing fraud in conspiracy with the Administrator, Municipal Board for which also a criminal case is going on against the accused and the Administrator. It was thee alleged in the complaint that all the accused, who are eight in number, in pursuance of common object and by hatching a conspiracy decided to cause damage to the shop and that in case the complainant interferses, he may be done to death. Complainant on 10th Feb. , 1983 moved the Dy. S, P. and on subsequent day the S. D. M. , Neem-ka-thana but no action was taken, therefore he phoned to the Superintendent of Police, Sikar than personally met him at Sikar on 18th Feb. , 1983 who in turn told him that he had phoned to the Dy. S. P. to get the shop attached in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. but still nothing was done. On the same day the accused persons entered the shop damaged the shop in as much as even the slabs which were there in the shop were broken by spades. They took away the broken pieces of the stones slabs amounting to Rs. 200/- with them. Total loss was calculated by the complainant Rs: 1000/ -. He explained the delay by stating that on 14th, 15th, 16. 02. 1983 complainant went to Jaipur and when he returned, he met the Police but the Police went on deferring the matter and when he found that nothing is being done thereafter, he filed this complaint. This complaint was filed for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 447, and 379/120-B, IPC. Along with this complaint, the complainant filed seven docu-ments which included the original Patta issued on 20-8-1961 in his favour, sale deed in favour of Gyarsi Lal dated 1-5-1963, photostat copy of the certificate issued by the Municipal Board date 10-12-1976, copy of the written-statements dated 24-9-1960 and 2-5-1963, copy of the decree dated 9-5-1976 and the site plan dated 1-3-1983. The complainant was registered and statements of Gyarsilal and complanant Beharilal were recorded. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements directed the case to be registered for offences under sections 448 and 427, IPC vide his order dated 4. 04. 1984. Accused persons thereafter moved an application on 14. 11. 1984 that the order taking cognizance against them is an erroneous order and therefore it should be revoked and proceedings be dropped. A reply was filed to this application on 23. 01. 1985. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for offence under section 448, IPC only against accused Ramotar, Kailash and Bhanwar, petitioners before this Court and dismissed the complaint under section 203. Cr. P. C. against rest of the accused persons. It is thereafter that the present petition has been submitted before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid history of litigation between the parties suggests that criminal cases have been lodged to wreck the personal vengeance and to pressurise the petitioners in proceedings which are otherwise of civil nature. It is submitted that accused-petitioners have been harassed by filing series of criminal case against them and that the have succeeded in the earlier cases also. It is submitted that in the cases ferred to in the complaint, which was of the similar nature where the offence alleged to was dated 28. 12. 1977. The accused have been he'd to be not guilty by the trial Court viz, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem-ka-thana viae his judgment dated August 18, 1987, which has been passed during the pendency of the present complaint. It is submitted that yet another case referred to in the complaint where a complaint was filed against the accused for offence under section 465 read with sections 109 466/109 & 193 IPC has also been held to be of civil nature and the complaint has been dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C. The learned counsel then submits that it is past 28 years that litigation regarding the disputed shop is going on between the parties and yet the cases have not come to an end. To proceed with the present complainant would amount to abuse of the process of the Court in as much as the corriplaint could not substantiate and cannot substantiate in criminal proceedings his physical possession over the property since it is a matter of half constructed shop where rival claims are made by the parties and as mentioned above are subject matter of civil litigation. It is lastely submitted that in such cases where the matter is of civil nature the court must intervene under section 482, Cr. P. C. to prevent abuse of the process of the Court has held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Trilok Singh vs. Satya Dev Tripathi (1 ). It is also submitted that assuming for a moment that the complainant has a prima facie case to proceed yet it would be travesity of justice to continue the prosecution for petty offence under sections 448 and 427 IPC in the circumstances of the case where the total loss calculated is Rs. 100/ -. Mr. Kejriwal, appearing on behalf of the complainant, submitted that there are series of decisions and orders of the Civil Court as in the instant case where by the possession of the petitioner is established. Also both oral and documentary evidence do substantiate the story of 13-2-83. It is submitted that accused persons who are in habit of repeating crimes one after another should not be treated leniently and this petition deserves to be dismissed. His submission is that it was the complainant who had purchased the entire piece of land out of which he had sold part to Gyarsi Lal and Gyarsi Lal had given on rent one shop duly constructed in that portion to accused Ramotar. Accused Ramotar thereafter dishonestly and malafied committed trespass on the shop which the complainant was constructing on his own land and in order to justify his act in conspiracy with the Municipal Authorities obtained a Patta fraudulently for which a criminal case was instituted. It is further submitted that yet another fraud was committed by accused Ramotar when he forged a sale-deed alleged to have been executed by Gyarsi Lal regarding which also Gyarsi Lal filed a case against accused & accused was discharged by the concerned Magistrate but this Court has reversed the order against Ramotar and case is proceeding against him. It is submitted that accused cannot be given premium over the offences he has committed one after another by permitting him to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court which should be exercised very rarely. It is submitted that the case does not fall within the ambit of section 482 Cr. P. C and interference should not be done. Learned counsel also relies on Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kunjalgi (2) and P. Vijaya-pal Reddy v. The State (Govt. of India) (3 ). Relying on the earlier cases, learned counsel submits that no other record can be seen by the Court except the complaint and the statement recorded during the inquiry under sec. 202 Cr. P. C. While relying on the latter case, learned counsel submits that the scope of section 482 Cr. P. C. is very limited and it can only be exercised when the facts alleged in the complaint, if they are accepted to be correct at face value do not make out an offence with which the accused is charged. It is submitted that a perusal of the complaint along with the statement of the complainant and the documents submitted, make out a prima facie case against the accused persons to proceed with. I have considered the rival contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. At the out set I may observe that in cases like the present where there is a long history of litigation both civil and criminal and where the other colateral proceedings are pending in various court, it is neither proper nor advisable to go deep and comment in detail on the facts & circumstances of the case else the other cases may get prejudiced and, therefore, the cases is being looked into from the broader angle keeping in view as to whether in the peculiar circumstances of the case where there had been several criminal cases earlier also between the parties, is it advisable to continue a case when the total damage caused and claimed is Rs. 100/- particularly where a similar complaint met a sad fate for the complainant and it is in this back ground that I proceed to examine the case hereinafter.
(3.) FIRST coming to scope of Section 482, Cr. P. C. suffice it to say that the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered by me in detail in case of Vimla Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Misc. Petition No. 175/88 (4) decided on 7-10-1988 where in the entire scope has been considered. After due consideration I laid down the parameters within which the petitioner has to bring his case for interference by this Court. The parmeters laid down are as under : (i) When the FIRST Information Report, even if accepted as true, discloses no reasonable suspicion of the commission of a cognizable offence; or there is a complete bar for taking cognizance in the manner prescribed ; i (ii) When the materials subsequently collected in the course of an investigation further disclose no such cognizable offence at all ; (iii) When the continuation of such investigation would amount to an abuse of power by the police thus necessitating interfence in the ends of justice; and (iv) That even if the FIRST Information or its subsequent investigation purports to raise suspicion of a cognizable offence, the High Court can still quash if it is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised malafide. While examining the case in light of the aforesaid I am of the opinion that for securing the ends of justice it would be essential to quash these proceedings here and now for the simple reason that for 28 years the parties have been fighting in criminal courts and the total amount of damage shown in the complaint is Rs 100/ -. Continuing criminal proceedings for such petty matters is not only a personal loss of time, money and energy of the party but is a cruel encroachment upon the right of the honest litigants in the Court whose cases are not heard for want of time. In the instant case, I have already staled in the case two of the complaints filed the complaint was dismissed, while civil proceedings and one criminal complaint filed by Gyarsi Lal is pending. I would not like to burden the subordinate court with one more litigation in the instant case by sending this case again for re-trial assuming that the complaintant has a case on merits. There is already a civil litigation pending about the disputed property and otherwise also the fate of this case would depend upon the fate of the civil case because proceedings of criminal case are always co-terminus in proceedings of civil case in the Court in case the subject matter is same. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that it is essential to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court that such a complaint which essentially is also of civil nature and where the civil case is already pending, the petition deserves to be allowed. For the reason mentioned above, this application is allowed and the orders dated 18. 08. 1987 and 4. 04. 1984 taking cognizance are set aside and the proceedings are quashed. .;