JUDGMENT 1. 1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.PC by one of the several accused against whom cognizance have been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur by his order dated 9th July, 1986. The cognizance against the petitioner has been taken for offences under Sections 147, 384, 427, 347, 140 and 120 IPC. 2. The petitioner in this petition has stated that he is an Advocate practicing in the city of Jaipur and he owns land measuring 27' X 40' situated at Sansar Chandra Road near Government Hostel, Jaipur where the complainant Sita Ram was his tenant. His case is that he obtained a decree of ejectment against Sita Ram on 17th July, 1985 which was sought to be executed on 18th October, 1985 but there was resistance on the part of Sita Ram and on the report of Bailiff, the Court directed for providing police force and the decree was executed on 3rd November, 1985. It is mentioned in the petition that on this date, the judgment - debtor in the presence of his Advocate viz., Manohar Singh and Banwari Lal voluntarily handed over the possession and passed a receipt that the goods belonging to him, have been taken in possession by him. It is mentioned that subsequently Sita Ram moved and application for setting aside the ex-parte decree which is subjudiced. He is alleged to have filed a First Information Report on 21st December, 1985 i.e. after 48 days of eviction in the Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur. Some substance of the First Information Report was quoted by the petitioner. He submits that on this FIR the CID after investigation submitted a charge-sheet on the basis of which the cognizance has been taken. His case is that proceedings deserve to be quashed on several counts. The first submission made by the learned Counsel is that the entire case is basically of civil nature and criminal court ought not to have taken the cognizance. Secondly, that the petitioner is holding a valid and legal decree for eviction and it was in execution of the decree that the complainant has been evicted and that too after the Court's providing for police assistance. Secondly, that the petitioner is holding a valid and legal decree for eviction and it was in execution of the decree that the complainant has been evicted and that too after the Court's providing for police assistance. It is further contended that the charge - sheet mentioned about a report having been made on 3rd November, 1985 but the basis of the challan is the First Information Report dated 21st December, 1985 and, therefore, the latter being hit by Section 162 Cr.PC, the same is inadmissible in evidence and case cannot proceed in the absence of First Information Report. It is further submitted that the statements of the witnesses have been recorded inordinately delayed and they are not worthy of reliance. Some more arguments on the facts of the case were also advanced which are not necessary to be mentioned at this stage. 3. Mr. Bajranglal Sharma appearing for the petitioner and the petitioner in person also placed reliance on Hanja and Anr v. State of Rajasthan, (1984 Cr.LR (Raj.) 46) and submitted that the First Information Report which has been produced on record is clearly a document post starting of the investigation and the police had already reached at the spot on 3rd November, 1985 itself and it is, therefore a post investigation document. An argument was also advanced about the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and seizure under Section 102 Cr.PC. Relying on Kadungoth Alavi v. State of Kerala, (1982 Cr. LJ 94) , it was submitted that there is no report of seizure sent till date and it cannot be considered to be an incriminating circumstances. Reliance was also placed on Sardar Trilok Singh and Ors v. Satya Deo Tripathi, 1979 Cr LR (SC) 86 , and submitted that the dispute is of the civil nature. Reliance was also placed on Changanlal v. Shyamlal and Ors., 1987 Raj. , Dandik Narnaya Patrika 177, T.F., Pardiwala and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 WLN 222 , Jeewa Ram and Ors v. Madan Lal and Anr, 1985 (1) WLN 565 and Mst. Suraj v. Multan, 1976 Raj. Cr. Cases 260. 4. Reliance was also placed on Changanlal v. Shyamlal and Ors., 1987 Raj. , Dandik Narnaya Patrika 177, T.F., Pardiwala and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 WLN 222 , Jeewa Ram and Ors v. Madan Lal and Anr, 1985 (1) WLN 565 and Mst. Suraj v. Multan, 1976 Raj. Cr. Cases 260. 4. With the permission of the Public Prosecutor, Shri B.K. Pathak, counsel for the complainant Sita Ram submitted that the entire case has a chequerred history and the accused persons high handedness exhibiting the might they can circumvent the process of law by taking the law into their own hands even through the process of the Court. It is submitted that delay in lodging the FIR is fully explained in as much as the copy sent to the Superintendent of Police of the report is on record which shows that the report was immediately made but it was the police officials of Vidhayakpuri's Police Station who were siding with the petitioner and, therefore nothing could be done. He submits that no prejudice or mis-carriage of justice has been shown by the petitioner and, further that this is not the stage where this Court should interfere. The learned Counsel placed reliance on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi., AIR 1964 SC 221 , The State v. Pukhia, 1962 RLW 539 , Gyasiram v. The State., AIR 1964 Raj. 237 , Hari Das Mundra v. The State., AIR 1959 All 82 , Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr, (1979 Cr.LJ 154) and N.S. Parameswara Iyer v. Appavu Panicker Mrithunjaya Panicker and Ors, (1963(2) Cr.LJ 215). 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentious and have also perused the case law cited and also called for the record of the trial court for perusal of the original documents placed on record. 6. The entire case has a chequered history and few facts cannot be disputed. The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, filed a suit of ejectment on 25th May, 1985 showing Rs. 13,4000/- as arrears of rent also. The plaint was placed before the District Judge on 27th May, 1985 and the process was ordered to be issued on that day made returnable on 1st June, 1985. The petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, filed a suit of ejectment on 25th May, 1985 showing Rs. 13,4000/- as arrears of rent also. The plaint was placed before the District Judge on 27th May, 1985 and the process was ordered to be issued on that day made returnable on 1st June, 1985. It is pertinent to mention that 27th May, 1985 was a date immediately prior to start of the summer vacations and 1st June, 1985 immediately on the opening. This summon returned on 1st June with the endorsement that Sita Ram has refused to accept the service and the learned District Judge treating the service complete directed the suit to proceed ex parte. The evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner was recorded on 9th July, 1985. Arguments were heard on 11th July, 1985 followed by a decree on 17th July, 1985. Thus, the suit for ejectment took less than a couple of month to be disposed of including one month's vacation intervening. The decree was sought to be executed on 18th October, 1985 on which date Nazir reported resistance and asked for police force and the learned District Judge wrote to the Superintendent of Police and the decree was executed on 3rd November, 1985 which admittedly was Sunday. I would not like to comment any thing about the passing of the decree exparte and execution thereof since I have been informed that application for setting aside the ex parte decree and restitution of possession is pending before the Court and it would be for the civil court to adjudicate on this point. Suffice it to say for the purpose of considering the facts of this application that admittedly the decree was an ex parte decree where resistance was shown according to the petitioner's own case on 18th October, 1985 and then the decree was executed on Sunday with the aid of the police force. Suffice it to say for the purpose of considering the facts of this application that admittedly the decree was an ex parte decree where resistance was shown according to the petitioner's own case on 18th October, 1985 and then the decree was executed on Sunday with the aid of the police force. The arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are absolutely premature at this stage and it would be running counter to the spirit of the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC to take up the case of one accused person at this stage and give him a preferable treatment by quashing the prosecution particularly when he is the beneficiary of the whole episode, Regarding the arguments of the FIR since the matter is to be decided by the competent Court at the relevant stage and also that the FIR has to be considered for the purposes of contradicting or corroborating the maker of it to say that it would hit Section 162 Cr.PC would at this stage mean adjudication of an important mixed question of law and fact where the allegations are also leveled against the police persons it cannot be lost sight that with the charge-sheet the police has filed the photostat copy of virtually the similar report except few lines lodged before the Superintendent of Police on the date of the execution of the decree i.e. 30 November, 1985. A true copy of this has been issued by Addl. Supdt. of Police on 2nd December, 1985 which clearly means that this document was in existence much priror to 21st December, 1985. What would be the effect of tossing the report from the Superintendent of Police to Incharge, Police Station, Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur could be a matter of evidence in the case. A perusal of the entire record including the photo-graphs placed along with the charge-sheet show that virtually an established workshop of the petitioner having several machineries and goods have been ran-saked with the assistance of the police in the garb of the execution of decree. Prima facie for the purposes of considering the application under Section 482 Cr.PC. I am unable to accept for a moment that the whole case is such which falls within the ambit of Section 482 Cr.PC. Prima facie for the purposes of considering the application under Section 482 Cr.PC. I am unable to accept for a moment that the whole case is such which falls within the ambit of Section 482 Cr.PC. On the contrary, there is over whelming evidence on record to suggest that a judgment debtor has been placed off of his property and through out on a holiday in a manner which can only shock the conscience of a person in a democratic State based on rule of law. There is prima facie evidence to suggest that the petitioner's goods have been recovered from the residence of one Tularam who was not even a party to the decree. I am not inclined to discuss either the questions of law or of the facts at this stage as it may prejudice the case of either of the party or the parties who are not before me but I have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. 7. The petition is dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed. *******