JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties as also learned P.P. The impugned order dated 238.1997 as also record available on the file indicate that on 25.5.1992, petitioners herein, being landlords, forcibly trespassed into two rooms, allegedly given by them on rent to non-petitioner No. 2. Mahendra Singh, resulting which a complaint was filed in the Court of ACJM, Parbatsar, which was sent u/s.156(3), CrPC to the Police Station for registering the offence and investigation. After investigation, Final Report was submitted. Thereupon, a protest petition was filed in the Court below, on which cognizance was taken for offence u/ss. 147, 323 & 452 IPC. The order of taking cognizance dated 23.8.1997 has been assailed by filing this petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel submitted that non-petitioner Mahendra Singh was never entered as tenant in the said premises but he forcibly took possession of those rooms and a civil suit u/s. 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act was filed, which was decreed against Mahendra Singh and was upheld even by the High Court in Amar Singh v. Ghanshyam, 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 384 . In such a situation, the trial Court should have not taken cognizance in the above matter. 3. Learned counsel for non-petitioner as also learned P.P. supported the impugned judgment. 4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 5. When it has been held by the civil Court that non-petitioner herein-Mahendra Singh, has forcibly taken possession of two rooms belonging to petitioner and when the suit filed u/s. 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act has been decreed and has been upheld up to High Court, prima facie, it can not be said that any offence u/ss. 147, 323, 452 IPC has been committed. Cognizance so taken seems to be abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, I accept this petition and set aside the impugned order.Petition allowed. *******