1. This petition under Section 561-A CrPC is filed with the prayer that the proceedings in criminal case, which have arisen out of FIR No. 108 of 2007 dated 29th of July, 2007 registered with Police Station, Billawar under Section 447 RFC and pending on the files of Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Billawar be quashed on the principal ground that the petitioners, who are accused in this case, are tenants of the land and a civil suit has been filed by the complainant against the petitioners wherein injunction has been granted for restraining the petitioners from interfering into the possession of land in question. 2. The complaint was filed on 29th of July, 2007m which it was alleged that at about 11.30 AM, the complainant along with his cousin Jagdish Chander entered into their land for sowing the maash crop. It was also stated in the complaint that the maash crop was sowed in ten kanals of land and the other remaining piece of land was leveled by putting into service JCB machine. It was also alleged that on the land measuring 24 kanals 2 marlas covered by survey No. 1182 situated at Village Dher tehsil Billawar, the petitioners criminally trespassed and started re-ploughing the land without any right or title. It was alleged that when the accused-petitioners were asked to refrain from their illegal activities, they threatened the complainant. A case under Section 447 RFC was registered and after conclusion of the investigation, report under Section 171 CrPC has been filed before the court. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved of the aforesaid criminal case, wherein challan has been filed under Section 447, on the principal ground that they are protected tenants of the land in question and that the civil suit has been instituted by the complainant-owner against the petitioners in the year 2000 wherein it has been prayed that the petitioners-accused be restrained from interfering into the possession of the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the civil suit, factum of possession is to be, determined. The criminal case would not proceed as the petitioners can be convicted only when it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they have trespassed into the land of another person with criminal intention of committing the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the civil suit, factum of possession is to be, determined. The criminal case would not proceed as the petitioners can be convicted only when it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that they have trespassed into the land of another person with criminal intention of committing the offence. Learned counsel submitted that due to the pendency of the civil suit and in view of determination of the issue of possession, the concurrent criminal proceedings will not lie and require to be quashed by this court in exercise of inherent powers. Learned counsel in support of his contentions referred to the judgement of Apex Court in case tilled M/s Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s NEPC India Ltd reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2780 as also to the case titled M/s Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd & ors v. Md. Sharaful Haque & ors. Learned counsel prayed for allowing the petition and quashing the proceedings. 5. Mr. O.P. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the.suit was instituted in the year 2000 against the petitioners and in the year 2002, thr revenue entries were clandestinely changed wherein the petitioners have been recorded as protected tenants. The learned counsel submitted the Xerox copies ol rev enue extracts to show that right from the year 1969 uplo 2002, the complainant-respondent were recorded as owner.-- in self cultivation of the said land. Learned counsel submitted that the entries of 2002, which shows petitioners, is protected tenants of the land stand vitiated in law as the record has been changed during the pendency of the civil suit. Learned counsel in support of his contentions referred to and relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 484. 6. In a case like this, where dispute is raised about the possession of land and parties are staking their claims, which are conflicting in nature and which require to be settled in pending proceedings, deciding the questions in ancillary proceedings may not be possible. 7. The complainant claims that he along with co-owners is in possession as owners of land measuring 40 kanals and 2 marlas covered by survey No. 1617/1182. The revenue entries from the year 1969 suggests that the owners are in possession of the land and the entries show that the owners are cultivating the land themselves. 7. The complainant claims that he along with co-owners is in possession as owners of land measuring 40 kanals and 2 marlas covered by survey No. 1617/1182. The revenue entries from the year 1969 suggests that the owners are in possession of the land and the entries show that the owners are cultivating the land themselves. The revenue record produced by the petitioner shows that in Kharief 2002, the, petitioners are recorded as protected tenants of the said land. 8. In these proceedings, it is to be seen as to whether in such a hazy factual scenario, the court should interject the criminal proceedings. In criminal cases in order to fasten the guilt on the accused persons, same has to be proved beyond all shadow of doubts. In a civil suit, a decree can be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the evidence of preponderance of the probabilities. In some cases, the civil and criminal actions may over lap. The purpose of initiating criminal action is to ensure that the guilty person is punished whereas, in civil cases, the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon. The purpose of initiating criminal action is to achieve its own ends, which action is initiated in public interest than in private interest. The offence committed by a person is an offence against the society. That is how the State steps into the shoes of the complainant to prosecute the offenders. In civil suits, the individual rights of the parties are to be ascertained and determined. In all cases, it is not possible to hold that pendency of civil suit and determination of the issue, which has been cause of filing criminal case, shall result into quashment of the criminal proceedings. There can be instances, where in such circumstances, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it may not be possible to take a view at this stage contrary to the view taken by the prosecuting agency, which has investigated the case and after its conclusion filed the challan against the petitioners. The powers to quash the proceedings, which are inherent in this court, are to be exercised only in a rare cases and in exceptional circumstances. The case on hand does not fall in such category. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed. Record be sent back.