ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition for quashing of FIR No. 210/2014 and the consequential charge-sheet dated 18.12.2014. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is a civil dispute. The petitioners have won before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the order of which has been placed on record as Annexure-2. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the area in dispute belongs to the petitioners and therefore, after the appeal was allowed and the stay order operating against the appellant was vacated, the appellant was within his right to take possession. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2014)10 SCC 663 , Binod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., wherein the Apex Court has held that a civil liability cannot be converted to criminal liability. The Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of under Section 482 of Cr.PC. reiterated that the exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for in case, the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It was further held that the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection and the High Court is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the genuineness of the allegations made therein. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. In the FIR, there is a specific allegations that the petitioners have demolished 6 ft. high wall and has unauthorisedly entered and taken possession. It is true that the petitioner herein has a judgment in his favour by the Revenue Appellate Authority, whereby the stay order granted in favour of the complainant party was rejected but it is equally true that if a person is in possession he can be dispossessed only in accordance with due process of law. The petitioners herein have forcefully taken possession and therefore, the investigating officer after investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner. In Binod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) the Apex Court held that jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and this not being a case where a civil dispute is being converted to criminal dispute because it is only after the decision of the Revenue Court that the petitioners have taken possession by demolishing a wall. 7. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) the Apex Court held that jurisdiction under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly and this not being a case where a civil dispute is being converted to criminal dispute because it is only after the decision of the Revenue Court that the petitioners have taken possession by demolishing a wall. 7. The charge-sheet discloses commission of an offence as the petitioner has forcefully demolished the wall and taken possession without recourse to process of law hence, no case is made for quashing of the FIR and the charge-sheet. Consequently, the misc. petition is dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed.