Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants – original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-260 of 2005 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(5), 3(8), 3(9), 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”]. 2. The impugned FIR has been lodged by Respondent No. 2 herein – original complainant with Rander Police Station on 19/07/2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(5), 3(8), 3(9) and 3(10) of the Atrocities Act, for the offences alleged to have been committed on 19/12/2001 and/or prior thereto, alleging inter alia that she was in possession of the disputed land in question by adverse possession and despite the same, the said land has been sold by original owners by registered sale deed dated 11/10/2001 in favour of Petitioner No. 4 herein. The said sale deed was executed in favour of Petitioner No. 4 herein- Jayeshbhai Chandulal Patel by Petitioner No. 1 herein as power of attorney holder of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 – original owners. It is further alleged that though she has executed sale deed in favour of Haresh Pragjibhai Patel in the year 2004, she is still in possession of disputed land in question and the applicants have tried to dispossess her and she belongs to scheduled tribe community. It is alleged that the applicants have committed offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Atrocities Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the applicants herein have preferred the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. 3. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted that as such the applicants have not committed any offences as alleged either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Atrocities Act. Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. 3. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has vehemently submitted that as such the applicants have not committed any offences as alleged either under the Indian Penal Code or under the Atrocities Act. It is submitted that as such the civil dispute is tried to be converted into criminal dispute by filing the impugned FIR, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court. It is submitted that instead of filing a Suit for cancellation of registered sale deed in favour of Petitioner No. 4, the complainant has filed the impugned FIR, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court and unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It is further submitted that as such the original complainant was/is never in possession of the disputed land in question. It is submitted that she herself has sold the disputed land in favour of Hareshbhai Patel by registered sale deed dated 03/02/2004 and under the said sale deed, it is specifically mentioned that she has handed over the possession of the land in question to the Hareshbhai Patel. 3.1 Mr. A.D. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has further submitted that even one Jivrajbhai Pragjibhai Dudhat and Narendrabhai Dalsukhbhai Sarang have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 492 of 2001 in the Court of leaned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat for specific performance of agreement to sell/Satakhat alleged to have been executed by the original complainant herself and the said Suit is pending. It is submitted that in the said Suit, Jivrajbhai and Narendrabhai have claimed that they are in possession of the disputed land in question. It is further submitted that even when the applicants came to know about the execution of the sale deed in favour of Hareshbhai, Petitioner No. 4- Jayeshbhai, who had purchased the land in question in the year 2001, has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat for declaration and permanent injunction and to quash and set aside the sale deed in favour of said Hareshbhai Patel and the complainant is party to the said Suit. It is submitted that in the said Suit, Petitioner No. 4 – Jayeshbhai Patel has submitted application Exh-5 praying for interim injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. It is submitted that in the said Suit, Hareshbhai, who has purchased the land in question from original complainant, has submitted counter ad-interim injunction application claiming that he is in possession of the disputed land in question pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in his favour dated 03/02/2004. Learned Trial Court after hearing all the concerned and on appreciation of evidence as alleged, has allowed application Exh-5 submitted by Petitioner No. 4 and has dismissed the counter ad-interim injunction application submitted by Hareshbhai and learned Trial Court has restrained the defendants inclusive of the applicants from interfering with the possession of the said Jayeshbhai Patel. Therefore, it is submitted that when the complainant was never in possession of the disputed land in question, there is no question of any offences as alleged to have been committed by the applicants under the Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that even the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code are not made out as the sale deed in favour of applicant No. 4 has been executed by applicant No. 1 herein as power of attorney holder of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 – original owners and, therefore, there is no question of committing any offences as alleged under the Indian Penal Code. 3.2 Mr. A.D. Shah, Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and others, reported in 2009 CriLJ 350; in the case of Minu Kumari and Anr. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in AIR 2006 SC 1937 as well as another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Vengama Naidu vs. T. Doraswamy Naidu, reported in 2008 (2) SCC (Cri.) 231 in support of his prayer to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present petition and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. 4. The present application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Aspi Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 – original complainant. By making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present petition and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. 4. The present application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Aspi Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 – original complainant. He has submitted that the question with respect to possession is a disputed question, which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that in the complaint when there is necessary averment that she is in possession of the disputed land in question and if the same is disputed, it is a question with respect to investigation to be done by Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is requested not to quash and set aside the impugned FIR at this stage. It is further submitted that even the findings given by learned Civil Court while deciding application Exh. 5 are tentative and preliminary as such the same are not binding to the Criminal Court. Even otherwise, the said observations are tentative and preliminary at this stage, the learned Civil Court may take contrary view at the time of trial. Despite the fact that the original complainant sold the disputed land in question to Hareshbhai in the year 2004 and in view of the understanding between the Hareshbhai and complainant, the complainant continued in possession of the disputed land in question, which was sought to be dispossessed by the applicants as the complainant belongs to scheduled tribe and when she tried to be dispossessed by the applicants, the complainant filed the impugned FIR for the offences punishable under Atrocities Act, which is separate and independent other than Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by the complainant that as such the complainant become owner by adverse possession as her husband and thereafter she was put in possession by original owners by executing power of attorney in the year 1974. Therefore, being owner by adverse possession, she was in possession of the land in question, which still to be continued even at the time of FIR. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present application. 5. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 has requested to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present application. 5. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 has requested to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this is a glaring example of misusing the criminal proceedings and civil dispute is tried to be converted into the criminal dispute. Before considering the rival contentions between the parties, chronological events are required to be considered, which are as follows: That the land in question was owned by Himmatsinh Khushalsinh Thakor. After the death of Himmatsinh in the year 1965, his three sons inclusive of the Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 became the owners of the said land and their names were entered into revenue records by mutation entry No. 603 dated 03/05/1980. It appears that one General Power of Attorney was executed by the owners of the disputed land in question in favour of Jamubhai Kalidas Surti – husband of the original complainant – Narmadaben. By Mutation entry No. 789 name of said Jamubhai was mutated in the revenue record as General Power of Attorney holder and as occupier and as owner of the disputed land in question. It appears that there was one Agreement to sell/ Satakhat in favour of original complainant herein on 02/09/1985 by the said Jamubhai as power of attorney holder of the original owners. The said Jamubhai expired on 07/10/1988. It appears that mutation entry No. 789 by which name of Jamubhai was mutated into the revenue record, has been taken under suo motu by the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Collector vide order dated 25/06/2001 directed to quash and set aside the aforesaid entry No. 789, which was in favour of Jamubhai on the ground that the said land is old tenure land, which would not be transferred in the name of Jamubhai and on the death of Jamubhai the power of attorney was not in existence and, therefore, the Collector passed an order to quash and set aside the mutation entry No. 789. The order dated 25/06/2001 passed by the Collector, Surat in Revision Application No. 362/Hearing/Case Registration No. 45/2001 has attained the finality as the same is not challenged by anybody. The order dated 25/06/2001 passed by the Collector, Surat in Revision Application No. 362/Hearing/Case Registration No. 45/2001 has attained the finality as the same is not challenged by anybody. It appears that thereafter the original complainant - Narmadaben has executed one Satakhat in favour of Jivraj Pragjibhai Dudhat and Narendra Dalsukh Sarang dated 04/08/1990. Thereafter, the said Jivrajbhai and Narendrabhai claimed the rights on the basis of the documents executed on 04/08/1990 and have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 492 of 2001 in the Court of 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat praying for specific performance of ‘Satakhat’ executed by Narmadaben – original complainant in their favour. 7. It appears that in the meantime, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein - original owners executed power of attorney in favour of Petitioner No. 1 herein – Dalpatbhai Patel and the said Dalpatbhai had executed registered sale deed in favour of Petitioner No. 4 herein – Jayeshbhai Patel. Therefore, in the aforesaid Suit filed by the said Dalpatbhai, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein are also joined as party defendants along with the original complainant herein. It appears that initially Petitioner No. 4 herein – Jayeshbhai was not joined as party in the said Suit. However, subsequently Petitioner No. 4 submitted application for joining as party defendant in the aforesaid Suit, which came to be allowed and this is how the Petitioner No. 4 is joined as party defendant in the said Suit. 8. It appears that the original complainant herein had executed one registered sale deed dated 03/02/2004 in favour of Hareshbhai Pragjibhai Patel. That thereafter after a period of almost one year and 4 months after executing sale deed in favour of Hareshbhai Patel, the original complainant – Respondent No. 2 herein – Narmadaben has lodged the impugned FIR against the applicants before Rander Police Station, Surat. In the meantime, much before filing of the impugned FIR, Applicant No. 4 herein – Jayeshbhai Chandulal Patel had already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 2004 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat for declaration and permanent injunction and for cancellation of the registered sale deed in favour of Hareshbhai executed by original complainant – Narmadaben. As stated hereinabove, in the said Suit, Dalpatbhai had submitted application Exh-5 for interim injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering his possession. As stated hereinabove, in the said Suit, Dalpatbhai had submitted application Exh-5 for interim injunction and restraining the defendants from interfering his possession. In the said suit, Hareshbhai, who had purchased the disputed land in question from Narmadaben, had also filed counter ad-interim injunction application claiming that he is in possession of the disputed land in question. That learned Civil Court by detailed order dated 31/04/2006 has allowed application Exh-5 of the Jayeshbhai- original plaintiff and application for counter ad-interim injunction below Exh-22 submitted by subsequent purchaser - Hareshbhai has been rejected. 9. That after institution of the aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 87 of 2004 and after a period of one year and four months from the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of Hareshbhai, the original complainant has lodged the impugned FIR before Rander Police Station alleging inter alia that she is in possession of the disputed land in question and she is sought to be dispossessed and she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, the applicants have committed offences punishable under the Atrocities Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present application for quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR is required to be considered. From the aforesaid, it is very clear that the dispute between the parties is purely civil dispute, which is tried to be converted into criminal dispute by the original complainant. It is required to be noted that in the said sale deed executed by Narmadaben herself in favour of Hareshbhai, it is specifically mentioned that she has handed over the possession of the disputed land in question to Hareshbhai. It is also required to be noted that there is agreement to sell/Satakhat in favour of Jivrajbhai and Narendrabhai, who also claimed that they are in possession of the land in question pursuant to the agreement to sell with possession executed by the original complainant. As stated hereinabove, Petitioner No. 4 is found to be in possession of the disputed land in question pursuant to the sale deed executed by power of attorney holder of the original owners and though the said sale deed in favour of Jayeshbhai is challenged by subsequent purchaser by way of counter claim only, but the fact remains that his counter injunction application is dismissed. As stated hereinabove, counter ad-interim injunction application submitted by Hareshbhai has been rejected. As stated hereinabove, counter ad-interim injunction application submitted by Hareshbhai has been rejected. It is required to be noted at this stage that in the said Suit filed by Petitioner No. 4 herein, original complainant – Respondent No. 2 herein though party to the said Suit has never submitted counter ad-interim injunction application claiming that she is in possession of the land in question. If Narmadaben was in possession of the disputed land in question as alleged, in that case, she would have certainly submitted application like Hareshbhai, who had purchased the disputed land in question from the original complainant. Therefore, even in the Suit, Jayeshbhai, who had purchased the disputed land in question by registered sale deed by Petitioner No. 1 herein and the said sale deed is challenged only by Hareshbhai and Hareshbhai is claiming that he is in possession of the disputed land in question and Narmadaben has never challenged the said sale deed and has not submitted any ad-interim injunction application claiming that she is in possession of the disputed land in question. Under the circumstances, to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicants would be abuse of process of law and Court and unnecessary harassment to the applicants. Dispute is purely civil dispute and the same is pending before learned Civil Court. Under the circumstances prima facie when it is found that Narmadaben is not in possession of the disputed land in question, there is no question of dispossessing her and committing any offences by the applicants under the Atrocities Act. 10. So far as offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code are concerned, Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original complainant is not in position to explain how registered sale deed executed in favour of Jayeshbhai is illegal and offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code have been committed by the applicants. Even considering the fact that registered sale deed by Power of Attorney Holder of Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and signatures on the registered sale deed by Power of Attorney Holder of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are not disputed, there is no question of committing any offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged. 11. 2 and 3 and signatures on the registered sale deed by Power of Attorney Holder of applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are not disputed, there is no question of committing any offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 114 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as alleged. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, to continue the criminal proceedings against the applicants would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants and abuse of process of law and Court and, therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned FIR. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the application succeeds and the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-260 of 2005 registered with Rander Police Station, Surat is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. P P P P P