Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, `Cr.P.C.) prays for quashing complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent No. 1, Ami Chand against the petitioners and issuance of process dated 16.8.2004 against them under Sections 323, 506, 392, 452, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, `IPC), Annexure P-2. It has further been prayed that all subsequent proceeding arising therefrom be also quashed. 2. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners alleging that he was owner in possession of a plot situated within the Abadi deh of village Dabkheri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. He has been residing on the above said plot in a Kacha house and a hut for the last over 40 years and has filled up the low lying plot during the last 20 years. On the construction material having been supplied by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra under the Government policy, he demolished the old construction and constructed a room upto the level of roof which has allegedly been demolished by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4, 22 and 23 along with one Joginder Singh. It is further alleged that they have no right or interest in the property. The demolition has been caused in order to take forcible possession of the plot. It is further alleged that the accused- petitioner had admitted the possession of complainant-respondent No. 2 in a compromise which was arrived at on 5.9.2003. It has also been alleged that on 8.9.2003, all the accused came on the said plot. They are alleged to have cut trees, namely, 50 trees of Safeda, worth Rs. 50,000/-, 75 trees of Poplar, worth Rs. 70,000/-, 2 Daink trees, worth Rs. 2,000/-, 12 Kattal trees, worth Rs. 75,000/-, 7 Mango trees, worth Rs. 7,000/- and 10 Lichi trees, worth Rs. 10,000/-. On objection raised by the wife of the complainant, she is alleged to have been beaten with lathies and slapped. There are further allegations of taking away the house-hold articles and ornaments from the house of the complainant. When the complainant reached his home from Chandigarh, the accused also beat him up with lathies. Accused Dharam Singh is alleged to have pointed a gun towards him. There are further allegations of taking away the house-hold articles and ornaments from the house of the complainant. When the complainant reached his home from Chandigarh, the accused also beat him up with lathies. Accused Dharam Singh is alleged to have pointed a gun towards him. Despite the complaints made to the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police as well as the Deputy Commissioner, no action was taken and the complainant filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate under Section 191(a) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and examined complainant as CW-1, Kamlesh as CW-2, Banwari Lal as CW-3 and Jasbir Singh as CW-4. The order passed by the Magistrate makes it evident that there is proper application of mind by him before issuing the process against the accused-petitioners. The concluding para of his order would reveal the aforementioned position, which reads as under :- "In the present case, the complainant Ami Chand categorically deposed on oath that he was owner in possession of a plot in abadi deh Dabkheri vide Ex. C-1. He along with his family was residing in the Katcha House and a hut on the said plot for the last 40 years. He had filled soil in the said plot about 30-35 years ago. He further deposed that seeing his poverty, A.D.C., Kurukshetra had supplied the construction material i.e. Saria and cement etc. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and accused Nos. 22 and 23 in connivance with Joginder, demolished his house without any right, title or interest, and took the possession of the plot. His wife moved an application in the police station on 30.8.2003 in which compromise was arrived on 6.9.2003 which is Ex. C-2. On 8.9.2003, his wife moved an application before D.C., Kurukshetra and D.S.P. Ex. C-4 in which it was mentioned that accused wants to stop their work and action was sought. On the same day, at 3.00 P.M. when his wife was present at his house, accused persons came there and started cutting trees as mentioned in the complaint and took away house hold belongings along with ornaments. His wife tried to intervene but in vain; rather accused gave beating to his wife and threatened to kill her if she tried to intervened. He arrived on the spot at 11.00 p.m. from Chandigarh. He witnessed the entire incident. Accused were beating his wife with danda and lathi. His wife tried to intervene but in vain; rather accused gave beating to his wife and threatened to kill her if she tried to intervened. He arrived on the spot at 11.00 p.m. from Chandigarh. He witnessed the entire incident. Accused were beating his wife with danda and lathi. When he tried to stop, Dharam Singh pointed out gun towards him and remaining accused were having axes and gandasi. Thereafter the complainant and his wife approached the police but no action was taken till today; hence the present complaint. CW-2, Kamlesh, CW-3 Banwari Lal and CW-4 Jasbir Singh also corroborated the statement of complainant. From the perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the complainant, a prima facie case for committing the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 392, 452, 148, 149 IPC is made out against the accused. Let they be summoned thereunder for 29.10.04 on filing of PF, copies of complaint etc." 3. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegations cannot be believed which are to the effect that the accused- petitioners started uprooting the trees at 3.00 P.M. and the occurrence continued upto 11.00 P.M. when the complainant reached the spot when he returned from Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel, such an occurrence could not have continued for eight hours. He further submitted that ten marlas of land cannot have a plantation of about 150 trees. The learned counsel has also argued that the matter is primarily civil in nature and a civil suit by the wife of complainant-respondent No. 1 for permanent injunction against petitioner No. 1 and others restraining them from dis- possessing her has already been filed (Annexure P-3). Similarly, a civil suit has been filed by petitioner No. 22, Om Parkash against wife of respondent No. 1 claiming to be the owner. It has been claimed in the civil suit that petitioner No. 22 had gone to his village in Uttar Pradesh and taking advantage of his absence, respondent No. 1 and his family members have entered illegal possession of his plot (Annexure P-4). Even earlier, a civil suit was filed by Om Parkash which was compromised on 23.10.2002. 4. After hearing the learned counsel at length, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for quashing the complaint or the summoning order. Even earlier, a civil suit was filed by Om Parkash which was compromised on 23.10.2002. 4. After hearing the learned counsel at length, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for quashing the complaint or the summoning order. A perusal of complaint, dated 28.1.2004 (Annexure P-1) and Summoning Order dated 16.8.2004 (Annexure P-2) would disclose that there are allegations which may constitute the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 and even 392 IPC. Any detailed discussion of the averments and the various ingredients of the alleged offences is advisedly avoided, it may result in causing prejudice to the petitioners at the trial. Moreover, no argument has been raised that the necessary ingredients of the offences have not been fulfilled. Broadly speaking, a reading of the complaint and the summoning order clearly discloses the various ingredients of the offences alleged. It is well settled that a complaint or FIR and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto could be quashed if the reading of the summoning order fails to disclose the commission of offences alleged or any other offence or lack of application of mind by the Magistrate, then the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution could validly be exercised as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha and others, AIR 1982 SC 949; Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 761 (SC) : 1998(5) SCC 749; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 (SC) : 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335; State of M.P. v. Harsh Gupta, 1998(8) SCC 630 and Narender Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat, 2000(10) SCC 322. 5. It is true that there is ample power with the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution by quashing criminal proceedings against an accused where it is found that it is sheer misuse of the process of law as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited (supra). However, it is equally true that mere pendency of the civil suit would not ipso facto lead the Court to a conclusion that there is a misuse of the process of law. However, it is equally true that mere pendency of the civil suit would not ipso facto lead the Court to a conclusion that there is a misuse of the process of law. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kamladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B., 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 522 (SC) : 2002(1) SCC 555; Alpic Finance Limited v. P. Sadasivan, 2001(1) RCR(Crl.) 756 (SC) : 2001(3) SCC 513; Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiah, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 813 (SC) : 2002(9) SCC 581 and M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 405 (SC) : 2001(8) SCC 645. Moreover, in the present case, where the civil suits have been filed by both the sides and during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners-accused are alleged to have trespassed and robbed complainant-respondent No. 1 of all his belongings, then, no misuse of the process of law could be presumed. The other argument that the version of the prosecution is not probable would also not require any serious consideration because no findings of fact can be recorded by this Court at this stage of the proceedings. The order summoning the accused-petitioners shows close application of mind after detailed consideration of preliminary evidence recorded by the Magistrate. Therefore, I am not impressed with the aforementioned argument. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.