Order Prasant Kumar, J - This is an application for quashing the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3746 of 2008, whereby he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 342, 323, 379, 427, 435 and 452 of the I.P.C. and issued summons against petitioners. 2. It is alleged that one Smt. Usha Devi had purchased 1.19 acres of land pertaining to khata no. 30, plot no. 18 at village-Chakla vide sale deed no. 10415 dated 07.07.2005 and came in peaceful possession of the same. It is further alleged that the aforesaid Usha Devi took loan from Allahabad Bank, Harmu Branch, Ranchi and constructed a hotel in the name and style of Amantran Restaurant. It is then alleged that on 26.09.2008 at about 8:00 a.m. in the morning accused persons came at the premises of Amantran Restaurant armed with several weapons such as sword, bhala, gun, pistol etc. and demolished building of Restaurant by using a bulldozer. It is further alleged that they assaulted informant and his men present at the Restaurant. It is then alleged that in course of occurrence accused persons damaged utensils, chairs, tables, generator, electronic goods and refrigerator of the Restaurant. It is further alleged that accused Nand Gopal Sahu snatched golden chain of Abhay Dubey worth Rs. 18,000/-. It is also alleged that all the accused persons burnt motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-01P-8875, which stood in the name of Manoj Kumar Tiwari. 3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, police registered Ormanjhi P.S. Case No. 109 of 2008 dated 26.09.2008 and took up investigation. After investigation, charge sheet submitted against Court-accused Govind Lal Gupta, Ugresen Sahu, Uma Shankar Sahu, Amit Kumar Sahu, Govind Prasad, Laxman Sahu, Mukesh Pandey, Nandy Dubey, Ashish Sahu, Ramesh Sahu and Ramesh Sahu on 24.11.2008 and on the basis of same, cognizance was taken against aforesaid accused persons. It then appears that a supplementary charge sheet filed against petitioners vide charge sheet no. 179 of 2010 dated 30.11.2010 and on the basis of said supplementary charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.12.2010, took cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 342, 323, 379, 427, 435 & 452 of the I.P.C. against petitioners. Aforesaid order dated 22.12.2010 challenged in this application. 4. 179 of 2010 dated 30.11.2010 and on the basis of said supplementary charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.12.2010, took cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 342, 323, 379, 427, 435 & 452 of the I.P.C. against petitioners. Aforesaid order dated 22.12.2010 challenged in this application. 4. It is submitted by Sri R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that admittedly a title suit is pending in between the parties with respect to the land pertaining to khata no. 30 plot no. 18 of village-Chakla. It is also submitted that a proceedings under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against the informant and Smt. Usha Devi in connection with land in question and prohibitory order passed against them. It is submitted that informant and Smt. Usha Devi violated said prohibitory order and same was brought to the notice of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi by the petitioners. It is submitted that Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed Ormanjhi police to conduct an inquiry and after conducting inquiry Ormanjhi police submitted a report on 08.05.2008 for initiating a proceeding against Smt. Usha Devi and Ajay Kumar Dubey under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as a counter blast to aforesaid report, submitted by Officer-in-charge, Ormanjhi Police Station, present case had been filed. It is submitted that the present F.I.R. lodged maliciously with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners, because they filed title suit as well as application for initiation of proceeding under Sections 107, 144 & 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. On the other hand, Sri Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, submits that it is true that a civil suit, bearing Title Suit no. 315 of 2007, is pending in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in connection with land in question. He further submits that on the instance of petitioner Nand Gopal Sahu various proceedings under Sections 144 & 145 Cr.P.C. were initiated but, ultimately dropped vide order dated 18.02.2008, 02.06.2008 & 06.05.2009. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 Nand Gopal Sahu had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, restraining Smt. Usha Devi and informant from going over the land, but said application of petitioner no. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 Nand Gopal Sahu had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, restraining Smt. Usha Devi and informant from going over the land, but said application of petitioner no. 2 was dismissed by Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi on 08.05.2008 on coming to the conclusion that the Smt. Usha Devi was in possession of the land. It is submitted that when the petitioners failed to get any relief from courts, they took the law in their own hand and on the date of occurrence i.e. on 26.09.2008, they formed an unlawful assembly and arrived at the premises of Amantran Restaurant and after assaulting informant and his men sitting in the Restaurant, ransacked various articles and furnitures of the Restaurant. It is submitted that petitioner and other accused persons also demolished the building of the Restaurant by using a bulldozer. Nand Gopal Sahu (petitioner no. 2) also snatched golden chain of Abhay Dubey and burnt his motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-01P-8875. Accordingly, it is submitted that infact petitioners and their accomplice committed aforesaid crime with a view to take vengeance against Smt. Usha Devi and informant because various orders passed by different courts gone in their favour. It is submitted that pendency of Civil suit at the instance of petitioners cannot be treated as a license for committing the present crime. Thus, pendency of title suit is no ground for quashing the order of cognizance. It is further submitted that investigating officer while submitting charge sheet had categorically stated that during the investigation, he inspected place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses and come to the conclusion that the allegations made against petitioner are true. Thus, materials collected during the investigation prima facie show that the petitioners and their men had committed the present crime. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of first information report, I find allegations against the petitioners and others that on 26.09.2008 at about 8:00 a.m. they went to the premises of Amantran restaurant armed with sword, spear, gun etc. and assaulted informant and other persons. It is also alleged that accused persons had tried to kill Abhay Dubey by putting him in fire. It is also alleged that accused persons burnt motorcycle bearing registration no. and assaulted informant and other persons. It is also alleged that accused persons had tried to kill Abhay Dubey by putting him in fire. It is also alleged that accused persons burnt motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-01P-8875, which stood in the name of Manoj Kumar Tiwari. There is specific allegation against petitioner no. 2 that he snatched golden chain of Abhay Dubey worth Rs. 18,000/-. It is alleged that all the accused persons ransacked the Restaurant and broke it's table, chair, refrigerator, generator, electronic goods and other articles. It is also alleged that on being ordered by petitioner no. 2 accused persons demolished the building of the Restaurant by using a bulldozer. From perusal of Annexure-11 (charge sheet), I find that the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and recorded statements of witnesses and then come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are true. Accordingly, he submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. Thus, from perusal of allegations made in the first information report and objective findings of I.O., as stated in charge sheet (Annexure11), prima facie offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 342, 323, 379, 427, 435 & 452 of the I.P.C. are made out. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, that present first information report lodged maliciously with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioners, because petitioner no. 2 had filed a title suit and applications for initiation of proceedings under Sections 144 & 145 Cr.P.C., does not inspire confidence. It is true that Petitioner no. 2 had filed a title suit bearing Title Suit no. 315 of 2007 for declaration of his title over the land in question, but from perusal of Annexure-H, it appears that application for injunction, filed by the petitioner no. 2, was rejected by learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi vide order dated 08.05.2008, on coming to the conclusion that the suit property was in possession of Usha Devi. It then appears from Annexure-E that proceeding initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on the behest of petitioner no. 2 was dropped vide order dated 18.02.2008. Another proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. vide case no. M358/2008 was dropped vide order dated 02.06.2008. It further appears that Usha Devi had filed Mutation Revision against the order passed by Circle Officer, refusing to mutate her name, which was allowed by order contained in Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. 2 was dropped vide order dated 18.02.2008. Another proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. vide case no. M358/2008 was dropped vide order dated 02.06.2008. It further appears that Usha Devi had filed Mutation Revision against the order passed by Circle Officer, refusing to mutate her name, which was allowed by order contained in Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. Thus, I find that the result of various proceedings, both of civil court and executive courts gone in favour of Usha Devi, that too, prior to lodging of F.I.R. Thus, she or informant would not have any reason to take vengeance from accused persons and falsely implicate them in the present case. On the other hand, it, prima facie, appears that petitioners and other Court-accused had become furious and frustrated, as all the orders of courts had gone against them. Thus, prima facie, petitioners and other Court-accused had reason to commit present crime. Under the said circumstance, judgments of Supreme Court i.e. State of Haryana & others Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2000 (1) SCC 322, heavily relied by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions, have no application in the facts of present case. The second contention of Sri Mazumdar that since a civil suit is pending with regard to the land in question, therefore, criminal proceeding cannot proceed, has no leg to stand. It has been held by their lordships of Supreme Court in Kamla Devi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in 2002 (1) Supreme Court cases 555 that merely because a civil proceeding is pending between the same parties the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. Moreover, from the allegations made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. only criminal liabilities are made out, which can be tried by a criminal court. It is well settled that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings are different and distinct. It is needless to say that the occurrence took place on 26.09.2008 i.e. much after the date of filing of Title Suit no. 315 of 2007. Thus, the matter pending in the civil court is not the subject matter of criminal court. On that ground also, the argument of Sri Mazumdar appears to be misconceived, therefore cannot be accepted. 9. It is needless to say that the occurrence took place on 26.09.2008 i.e. much after the date of filing of Title Suit no. 315 of 2007. Thus, the matter pending in the civil court is not the subject matter of criminal court. On that ground also, the argument of Sri Mazumdar appears to be misconceived, therefore cannot be accepted. 9. As noticed above, from perusal of first information report and charge sheet, prima facie, offences, enumerated in the impugned order, are made out. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.