JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. for getting the criminal proceedings of criminal case No 4/88 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the petitioners and two other quashed arises under the following circumstances. 2. House No. 1735 situate at Ladiwalon Ka Rasta, Jaipur is stated to be the ancestral property of the parties-Nanag Ram complaint is alleged to be occupying a room in the said house and having his valuables and other possessions therein. Petitioners and others are also alleged to be residing in the same house. 3. On 8.7.85 Nanag Ram, respondent lodged a FIR with police alleging therein that on that day at about 11 a.m. the petitioners and two others forcibly entered into his room, ousted him therefrom, damaged his belongings and dishonestly removed the same. On the investigation of the case the police submitted a Final Report on 8.8.85. It appears that during the meanwhile the complainant had filed a complaint regarding the same incident and based on same facts against the same accused persons on 8.7.85 but the same was dismissed on 15.3.86. Thereafter the complainant filed a second complaint on 31.3.86 but that too was dismissed on 3.6.87. 4. The complainant thereafter filed the third complaint on 9.7.87 and it was on this complaint that on 16.6.88 the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offences under sections 323, 452, 427 IPC against the present petitioners and two others. No evidence appears to have since been recorded in this complaint case. Here it may also be mentioned that on the same set of facts and regarding the same incident the complainant Nanag Ram had filed another FIR with the police on 1.11.88 but the police submitted a Final Report after investigation on 24.12.88. A complaint for offence under section 182 IPC is also stated to have been filed by the police against Nanag Ram complainant and the same is reportedly pending in the concerned court. It may also be pointed out that on 3.10.85 Nanag Ram, complainant had also filed a civil suit with regard to the property involved in criminal litigation and such civil suit is also reportedly pending. It is in this backdrop that pendency of the criminal litigation against them has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground of the same amounting to abuse of the process of the court. 5. It is in this backdrop that pendency of the criminal litigation against them has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground of the same amounting to abuse of the process of the court. 5. The factual position as narrated above could not be disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor but arguing the case for and on behalf of the respondents she particularly submitted that since the learned Magistrate has already taken cognisance of the offences against the petitioners and others on the third complaint filed by Nanag Ram, complainant and the proceedings for the trial of the petitioners and others are pending before the trial court, no abuse of the process of the court is involved. 6. The fact as stated above undoubtedly do not attract the doctrine of autrefois acquit as laid down in Section 300 Cr.PC., yet the principles of estoppel and res-judicata as is applied to criminal proceedings is very much applicable to the facts and circumstances available in the present case. The dismissal of the two earlier complaints against the petitioners and others without summoning the petitioners and others as accused in the case may no doubt create a bar for filing the third complaint but the conduct of the party should be judged and appreciated in the totality of circumstances of a case. In the present case when the parties had already gone before the civil court as back as on 3.10.85, the filing of criminal * complaints successively as also the FIRs before the police clearly indicate an intentional abuse and misuse of the machinery of law through criminal courts. The forum of criminal courts is not meant for wreaking vengeance of the private parties upon their adversaries. There seems to be no reasonable excuse for the complainant to have successively lodged the three complaints and two FIRs out of which two complaints and both the FIRs had terminated against him and that too in view of the pendency of the civil litigation filed by him in respect of the same subject matter of litigation. The joint possession as also ownership of the parties to the ancestral house itself indicated that it was a dispute purely of civil nature and the forum of criminal courts was being simply misused and abused for wreaking private vengeance by the complaints against the petitioners and others. The joint possession as also ownership of the parties to the ancestral house itself indicated that it was a dispute purely of civil nature and the forum of criminal courts was being simply misused and abused for wreaking private vengeance by the complaints against the petitioners and others. In that view of the matter the pendency of the criminal litigation clearly amounts to abuse of the process of the court and such use is required to be prevented in order to secure justice to the petitioners and the other co-accused in the present case. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners and two others in criminal case No. 4/88 Nanag Ram v. Rameshwar in the subordinate court are hereby quashed and dropped. The complaint filed by Nanag Ram is dismissed with cost at Rs. 2,000/-. The cost shall be payable within four months from today to the Raj. High Court Legal Aid Service Committee. The copy of this order shall be sent to the Raj. High Court Legal Aid Service Committee for information and necessary action.Petition allowed. *******