JUDGMENT & ORDER : Petitioner by invoking inherent power of the High Court u/s 482 of the Cr. PC has prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of complaint case No.3/15 as well as First Information Report of Tamenglong Police Station Case No.2(3)/15 instituted u/s 427/447/34 IPC. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the informant/respondent as has been made in the Complaint Petition, needs to be taken notice of. 2. According to the case of the complainant, he has been enjoying hereditary right over the land in question which was owned and possessed by his ancestor since last sixty years. Over the said land dwelling house and cow-shed had been constructed and that the land had been developed by planting fruit bearing trees and also vegetable plants by putting fencing around the land in question. Since the land was situated at an isolated place, the petitioner moved to the top of the hill and constructed dwelling house by leveling the place and started living there. Meanwhile, dwelling house constructed over the land in question was dismantled but the kitchen garden developed remained intact along with its fencing. All of a sudden in the month of December, 2014 the petitioner with the help of his relatives brought building materials such as stone, sands, wood etc. over the land in question by dismantling the fencing which was existing and started constructing kutcha dwelling house. The complaint, on finding such illegal activities going on, asked the petitioner not to construct the building as he does have right, interest and title over the land in question, but the petitioner did not pay any heed to his request. In that event, the complainant made complaint to the Village Authority, Tamenglong against the petitioner for doing such illegal acts. Accordingly, Chairman, Tamenglong Village Authority initiated proceeding for vacating the house and issued summon to the petitioner but he did not appear. Thereupon the Chairman Tamenglong Village Authority passed an order for eviction. In spite of that the petitioner did not vacate the land and therefore complaint-respondent made a complaint before the Officers in-charge of the Tamenglong P.S. upon which a case was registered as Tamenglong PS Case No.2(3)15 u/s 427/447/34 IPC. Thereupon the Chairman Tamenglong Village Authority passed an order for eviction. In spite of that the petitioner did not vacate the land and therefore complaint-respondent made a complaint before the Officers in-charge of the Tamenglong P.S. upon which a case was registered as Tamenglong PS Case No.2(3)15 u/s 427/447/34 IPC. Thus, it has been alleged that the petitioner without having any right forcibly entered into the land by dismantling the fencing and cutting down precious trees, destroying vegetable plants and constructed house and thereby committed offence for mischief as well as criminal trespass. 3. Upon institution of the case, this application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire Criminal proceedings of the complaint case and also for quashing of the FIR. It was submitted by Mr. Julius Riamei that the petitioner, a resident of Tamenglong Village, was not having any land or plot of his own and therefore approached the landlord Dr. Lungphak T. Panmei, to accord permission for occupation of that land as he was the resident of village and was having no land of his own. On such permission being accorded, the petitioner occupied the land as licensee/tenant and started constructing dwelling house which was resisted by the complainant though the complainant respondent by vacating the land in question had shifted to other place where he was living by constructing house. Still, not only a complaint but even FIR for the same allegation was lodged. That apart, a suit bearing OS No.8/05 has also been filed by the plaintiff complaint in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Tamenglong for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and also for eviction of the petitioner from that land and thereby it becomes evident that there has been bonafide land dispute which can be resolved by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and in fact, the plaintiff complainant has approached to the Civil Court whereby the matter relating to right, title and interest over the suit land would be adjudicated upon and thereby continuation of any criminal proceeding would be unwarranted and hence the Criminal proceeding of the complainant as well as the FIR lodged against the petitioner warrants to be quashed. 4. As against this, Mr. 4. As against this, Mr. Babloo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the specific case of the complainant-respondent that the complainant had been enjoying hereditary rights over the land in question since last 60 years. However, the respondent had shifted his dwelling house to the upper part of the hill but he was still in possession of the land in question where some plants as well as vegetable plants had been grown by keeping the fencing intact which were destroyed by the petitioner and constructed a kutcha house over the land and thereby it is a clear-cut case of criminal trespass and mischief and under the circumstances the prosecution launched against the petitioner never warrants to be quashed. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that on the allegation of committing mischief over the suit land allegedly belonging to the complainant-respondent not only criminal case by way of complaint petition and also by lodging FIR, has been filed but even a suit has been brought wherein on amongst others a relief has been sought for declaration of the title of the plaintiff as absolute owner over the suit land and also for declaration that the defendant has no right and title over the suit land. The prayer made in the suit itself suggests that there happens to be bonafide dispute with respect to right, title and interest over the suit land. This fact gets reflected from the complaint petition wherein it has been stated that the defendant has no right, title over any part of the suit land. In that view of the matter and also keeping in view the stand taken by the petitioner that the petitioner having accorded with the permission by the land owner, had occupied the land by coming to the possession of the land considering himself to be the licensee/tenant landlord. In that event, offence of criminal trespass or mischief does not get attracted. Accordingly, there would be miscarriage of justice if the criminal prosecution in the facts and circumstances as stated above, is allowed to be continued. Hence, entire criminal proceeding of the complaint case bearing complaint case No.3 of 2015as well as the FIR of Tamenglong Police Station Case No.2(3)15 u/s 427/447/34 IPC are hereby quashed. In the result, this application stands allowed.