JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner and other co-owner had purchased the plot, bearing No.49 from the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, by means of sale deed dated 1.8.1996 (Annexure P2). In pursuance thereof, the mutations (Annexure P3 to P7) were sanctioned on 23.8.1996 in favour of petitioner. It was also claimed that after the death of Surjit Kaur, he had also purchased the share of her son Rajinder Singh, in pursuance of power of attorney (Annexure P8) and sale deed (Annexure P9). Narinder Singh son and Neelam daughter, other heirs of Surjit Kaur, filed the civil suits (Annexure P10 & P13), with regard to the same property, in which, status quo/stay orders (Annexure P11 & P14) were passed. The contempt petition (Annexure P19) was filed for violation of the stay orders. The petitioner has also filed the civil suit (Annexure P20) against Narinder Singh and others. It was alleged that on 29.11.2006 since Ajay Puri tried to trespass into his premises, so, the incident was reported to the police. However, the matter was stated to have been comprised and ASI Pal Singh submitted his report (Annexure P24) in this respect. 2. According to the petitioner that instead of awaiting the final outcome of the long protracted civil litigation between the parties, Ajay Purl son of Raj Kumar, claiming himself to be a property dealer and alleged attorney of Kamal Kishore and Indira Rani, lodged a criminal case against the petitioner on the allegations that on 28.11.2006, when they visited and entered into the premises in dispute, then they found that the petitioner has put his own lock by breaking the lock and stopped them from entering into the site in question. In the back ground of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.383 dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure PI) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 427, 448 and 511 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, in the manner depicted herein be­fore. 3. In the back ground of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No.383 dated 30.11.2006 (Annexure PI) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 427, 448 and 511 IPC by the police of Police Station Division No.6, Jalandhar, in the manner depicted herein be­fore. 3. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the registration of the criminal case and preferred the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure PI) and all other sub­sequent proceeding arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. interalia on the grounds that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and subject matter of civil suits mentioned hereinabove. Since the petitioner is owner and in possession of the property in question, so, question of committing the indicate offences did not arise at all. It was claimed that the complainant has lodged a false report in or­der to take revenge and put pressure on the petitioner, which is abuse of process of law. According to the petitioner, no offence whatsoever is made out against him. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR and all other sub­sequent proceeding arising therefrom in this relevant connection. 4. Faced with the situation, the respondents refuted the prayer of petitioner and filed the reply, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The prosecution claimed that the petitioner has committed the indicated offences. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure PI). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that they have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this behalf. 6. As is evident from the record that petitioner and his other co-owner had purchased the plot in question from the Improvement Trust, by way of registered sale deed (An­nexure P2). The mutations (Annexure P3 to P7) of partition were also sanctioned in their favour. 6. As is evident from the record that petitioner and his other co-owner had purchased the plot in question from the Improvement Trust, by way of registered sale deed (An­nexure P2). The mutations (Annexure P3 to P7) of partition were also sanctioned in their favour. The petitioner was stated to have purchased the share of Rajinder Singh, son of Surjit Kaur, by virtue of power of attorney (Annexure P8) and sale deed (An­nexure P9). In this manner, he became the owner and in possession of the property in question to the extent of his share. The civil suits (Annexure P10, P13 and P20) are pending between the parties in the manner described hereinabove. 7. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the only allegations alleged against the petitioner are that when the complainant, who is a property dealer and alleged attorney of Kamal Kishore and Indira Rani, entered inside the hall, then they saw him (peti­tioner) to put his own lock by breaking their lock, stopped from entering and tried to oc­cupy the house. No other overt act or specific part is attributed to him. Thus, the bare reading of the FIR (Annexure P1) and in the absence of any material, muchless cogent, to me, no such offence is made out against him. The allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie do not constitute/disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The allegation made in the FIR against him are so absurd and inherently improbable, on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is suffi­cient ground for proceeding against him. The complaint appears to have vexatiously and maliciously involved the petitioner in order to wreak vengeance and the criminal pro­ceeding in manifestly attended with mala fide against him. Such reckless/malafide FIR deserves to be quashed, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R 1991 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1119] : 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92. Such reckless/malafide FIR deserves to be quashed, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, A.I.R 1991 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1119] : 2008(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 92. The indicated Bench mark and all essential ingredients for quashing the criminal prosecution as laid down in the aforesaid judgments are fully attracting to the facts of the present case. 8. There is another aspect of the, matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. If the crux of the contents of the documents is put together and is perused, then the con­clusion is irresistible that the dispute between parties is purely a civil in nature. It is not a matter of dispute that the question of title/ownership and possession of house in dispute, would be the moot point to be decided by the civil courts in different suits between the parties as described herein before. It is now well recognized principle of law that the matter, which essentially involves the dispute of civil nature, cannot legally be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceeding. It is not a matter of dispute that the jurisdiction of civil and criminal Courts is entirely different and distinct from each other. The matter, which squarely falls within the ambit and jurisdiction of the civil Court, cannot legally be permitted to be re-agitated in parallel proceeding in the criminal court. As the civil suits are already pending between the parties with regard to the same subject matter, therefore, the complainant cannot legally be again permitted to re-agitate the same very dispute in the garb of criminal prosecution, by way of impugned FIR (Annexure PI). The complainant cannot be permitted to execute a non-existent civil court decree by putting pressure of a criminal case against the petitioner. Otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will inculcate and perpetuate injus­tice to the petitioner in this relevant connection. 9. The complainant cannot be permitted to execute a non-existent civil court decree by putting pressure of a criminal case against the petitioner. Otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will inculcate and perpetuate injus­tice to the petitioner in this relevant connection. 9. An identical question came to be decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Indian Oil Corporation v. NECP India Ltd. and others, (2006)6 S.C.C. 736 and Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned about a growing tendency of the people to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, in which, it was noticed the prevalent impression that since the civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors, so, the people have started to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying the pressure through criminal prosecution. It was observed that “such effort should be deprecated and discouraged. The same view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, [2007(4) Law Herald (SC) 3288] : 2008(1) S.C.C. (Crl.) 259 wherein it was observed that the veracity of the facts alleged by the complainant can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and if the dispute in question is purely of a civil nature, in that eventuality, the initiation of crimi­nal proceeding by the complainant against the accused is clearly an abuse of process of the Court. 10. Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Joseph Salvaria v. State of Gujarat and others, (2011)3 S.C.C. (Crl.) 23, in which, it was ruled as under:- “In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009)7 S.C.C. 495 , in which, it was held (para 27) that a distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.” 11. Sequelly, the contrary submissions of counsel for the respondents “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 12. Moreover, the petitioner purchased and plot and his proprietary rights cannot be taken away, unless otherwise ordered by the competent Court and by any means or by way of initiation of instant unwarranted criminal proceeding. Such valuable rights cannot be jeopardized. Likewise, the criminal proceeding cannot be taken recourse, to debar the true owner to enjoy his property. If the complainant has any legitimate claim, then, he may redress his grievance and claim his rights in the civil court and not otherwise. Be that as it may, to my mind, complainant cannot, in any manner, be permitted to launch frivolous criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The initiation and continuation of such criminal prosecution is nothing, but sheer and complete misuse/abuse of process criminal law. 13. Thus it is apparent from the record that the complainant has vexatiously and maliciously lodged the FIR (Annexure P-1) against the petitioner in order to wreak vengeance, which is liable to be quashed in view of ratio of law laid down in Ch. Bhajan Lal and Som Mittal’s cases (supra). 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. Bhajan Lal and Som Mittal’s cases (supra). 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all other subsequent proceeding arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the criminal prosecution in this relevant behalf. 16. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the civil suits, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition.