JUDGMENT : INDERJIT SINGH, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondents State of Punjab and Sukhjit Singh, for quashing of FIR No.51 dated 11.06.2015 under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition. Replies were also filed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. 4. From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Sukhjit Singh respondent No.2, in which he mainly alleged that he purchased three bighas of land comprising khasra Nos.641 (4-0), 642(4-0), 643(4-0), 644 (3-16), 645 (3-16) from Jeet Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.4 lacs on 13.02.2012 and he took the possession of that land at that very moment. The mutation and girdawari of that land is also in his name and since then, he has been ploughing this land. On 09.06.2015, Sarwant Singh told him that his land situated across Bundh, which he purchased from Jeet Singh, was being ploughed by someone. At about 12.00 P.M., he along with Jaswinder Singh went to the place and found that Jagtar Singh, Harjinder Singh, Seo Ram and five other unknown persons were ploughing his land forcibly. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the time of arguments, argued that land in dispute was jointly owned by five brothers and present respondent No.2 purchased the land from one of the brother. The khata was joint. No specific khasra number nor specific portion has been sold to him. He also argued that the vendee Jeet Singh was also not in exclusive possession of any specific khasra number. 6. As per the copy of the jamabandi Annexure P-3 which is placed on record, khata is shown as jointly owned and possessed by Seo Ram, Jeet Singh, Tara Chand, Jagtar Singh and Harjinder Singh. In the jamabandi, Sukhjit Singh is also shown to be joint owner of 15/196 share and Tarlochan Singh of 15/196 share. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2. In the jamabandi, Sukhjit Singh is also shown to be joint owner of 15/196 share and Tarlochan Singh of 15/196 share. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2. Has not shown any documentary evidence to show that earlier Jeet Singh was in exclusive possession or now he is in exclusive possession over the said land. Even the perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant has not stated in which khasra number or of which specific portion he is in exclusive possession. The civil proceedings as argued, are also pending between the parties. 8. As the parties are in joint possession and the complainant-respondent no.2 is the subsequent vendee of the share of one of the co-sharer in the joint khata and in view of the fact that no specific khasra number or portion has been given to him at the time of sale deed and also in view of the fact that accused-petitioners are joint owners and in joint possession of the suit property, I find that the registration of the FIR is nothing but abuse of process of law. The matter is of civil nature and respondent No.2 has the right to get his specific right/share, as per law. 9. Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. FIR No.51 dated 11.06.2015 under Section 447 IPC registered at Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.