JUDGMENT : Biren Vaishnav, J. 1. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is invoked by the applicants praying that the First Information Report being C.R. No-I-30/2010 registered at 'A' Division Police Station, Bhavnagar, against the applicants be quashed. 2. Respondent No. 2 Ushaben Ratibhai Bhurabhai, has filed the aforesaid complaint against the present applicants on 03.02.2010. According to the complaint, the applicants have by their acts, committed offences under Sections 341, 452, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint is annexed as Annexure-'A' to the present application. 3. On reading of the complaint, the following factual scenario emerges: 3.1 According to the complaint, she is the owner of two shops, shops Nos. 156 and 157 situated at "Madhav Darshan". In the complaint she states that, the shop has been given on rent to 'Ace Tele Services', rent agreement of which is produced on record. The applicants herein, have been shown as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively alleging that litigations between the complainant and the accused pertaining to the said shops is pending. Pending such litigations, the accused have sold the shops to anti social elements. She does not know the names of such purchaser. Shop No. 157 has been sold and as far as shop No. 156 is concerned, it is a matter pending litigation in Court. The complaint further states that the shops have been sold in violation of a Family Agreement, according to which, the shops were to be in the ownership of the complainant. The grievance in the complaint appears to be that between shops Nos. 156 and 157 a wall has been erected. The tenant on repeated complaints to the police has failed to gain appropriate relief. According to the complainant, in spite of pending litigations between her and the accused, no panchnamas are being made to show the correct position and the accused are continuing to commit fresh offences. Repeated representations to the Deputy Inspector General of Police have fallen on deaf ears, hence, the present complaint. 4. In order to appreciate the complainant's grievance and whether the First Information Report so lodged deserves to be quashed pending civil litigations between the parties needs a brief reference. The complainant Ushaben, prior to filing of the present First Information Report, filed a Civil Suit before the Bhavnagar Principal Senior Civil Judge, being Civil Suit No. 49 of 2010 dated 29.01.2010. The complainant Ushaben, prior to filing of the present First Information Report, filed a Civil Suit before the Bhavnagar Principal Senior Civil Judge, being Civil Suit No. 49 of 2010 dated 29.01.2010. The plaint and the suit is annexed as Annexure 'B' to the paper book. The present applicants are the original defendants in the civil suit. The prayer in the suit filed by the complainant is that the shops is question namely shop Nos. 156 and 157 at "Madhav Darshan" are of the ownership of the original plaintiff and a declaration accordingly be issued that she being the owner of the shop. The accused-original defendants have no right, title or interest over such shops. 5. Perusal of the plaint so filed also reveals the same narrative as in the First Information Report. Respondent No. 2 herein, in her plaint has stated that the shop, particularly, shop No. 157 has been sold by the defendants/accused to one Kamleshbhai Pravinchandra Shah, which is illegal, and therefore, she has given appropriate notices to the purchaser. The sale is in violation of a family arrangement, according to which, such shops should have come to her and therefore, she be declared owner of shops Nos. 156 and 157. The complaint also mentions of certain pending litigations between the parties. Fruitful it will be also to mention that the plaint talks of a criminal case No. 790 of 2007 invoking sections 465, 467, 406, 420, 419 and 471 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 6. It appears that, pending the First Information Report and the suit, panchnama has been drawn and a Court Commissioner has also taken a visit and filed a report. The Court Commissioner's Report dated 21.02.2010 indicates that, shop No. 157 is locked. It has a board in the name of 'Shah Enterprises'. Shop No. 156 shows some construction material and bricks lying around. The keys of shop No. 156 were found from one Nishant Vinubhai Patel, whereas, the keys of shop No. 157 were neither with the plaintiff, nor with the defendants. Also annexed to the Additional Affidavit filed by the applicant herein is an order dated 30.04.2010 passed below Exh. 5. application in regular civil suit No. 49 of 2010 of the complainant-plaintiff. Injunction has been refused by the aforesaid order. 7. Also annexed to the Additional Affidavit filed by the applicant herein is an order dated 30.04.2010 passed below Exh. 5. application in regular civil suit No. 49 of 2010 of the complainant-plaintiff. Injunction has been refused by the aforesaid order. 7. The complainant appears to have also filed a Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No. 190 of 2012 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhavnagar, against the accused-applicants as defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and against the purchaser of shop No. 157 Shri Kamleshbhai Pravinchandra Shah as defendant No. 3 and Nishith Mehta, the tenant of Shop No. 156 as defendant No. 4 and Madhav Darshan Non Trading Corporation as defendant No. 5. The prayer in the suit is to set aside the sale of shop No. 157 in favour of defendant No. 4, which according to the plaintiff/original complainant was entered into by a Sale Deed dated 27.10.2009. 8. Also on record in the paper book is a Caveat No. 11 of 2010 filed by the purchaser Kamelshbhai Shah of Shop No. 157 dated 25.10.2010. The Caveat lodged against the complainant Ushaben and two others namely the son and the husband of Ushaben indicates that shop No. 157 has been purchased by Kamleshbhai. He needs to make alteration in the shop and such alteration and in order that such alteration and repairing is carried out smoothly without hindrance from the complainant herein, in the event any proceedings are filed to stop such alteration/construction through Kamleshbhai Shah, the owner of the shop be heard. 9. Mr. S.P. Kotia, learned advocate for the applicants, through oral as well as written arguments, contends as under: (i) According to Mr. Kotiya, a bare reading of the First Information Report, by which the applicants have been accused of having committed offences under Sections 341, 452, 427 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code shows that the complaint on the face of it does not disclose the commission of such offences. Ingredients necessary to make the accused guilty of such offences are not stated in the complaint. (ii) Mr. Kotia, further, contended that on 25.02.2010, the complainant had received a Caveat from purchaser Kamleshbhai Shah, who wanted to carry out alterations and renovation in shop No. 157. Anticipating obstructions, he has filed such Caveat. Civil Suit No. 49 of 2010 was filed by the complainant on 29.01.2010. (ii) Mr. Kotia, further, contended that on 25.02.2010, the complainant had received a Caveat from purchaser Kamleshbhai Shah, who wanted to carry out alterations and renovation in shop No. 157. Anticipating obstructions, he has filed such Caveat. Civil Suit No. 49 of 2010 was filed by the complainant on 29.01.2010. On receipt of such a Caveat wherein the plaintiff-complainant sought a declaration that shops Nos. 156 and 157 be declared to be of her ownership and possession. (iii) Knowing fully well that Kamleshbhai was the owner of the shop by virtue of the sale dated 27.10.2009, which knowledge was apparent from the averment in the plaint, wherein, the complainant Ushaben had named the purchaser. The First Information Report, was not filed with clean hands by stating that the purchaser was an unknown individual, particularly, when she was aware of the transactions as disclosed in the plaint filed a few days before filing of the complaint. (iv) Mr. Kotia, further, contended that documents of record strictly pointed out that the ownership of Shop No. 156 was not that of the complainant-plaintiff, while shop No. 157 was undisputedly even according to the complainant in possession of Kamleshbhai Pravinchandra Shah. Civil disputes regarding ownership and possession were pending between the parties. Subsequent conduct of the complainant in filing a Civil Suit No. 190 of 2012 against the owner of Shop No. 157 and the tenant of shop No. 156 and the Non Trading Corporation indicated that civil remedy had been invoked and the adjudication regarding ownership and possession was at large in a civil litigation pending inter-se between the parties. (v) With reference to the criminal complaint No. 790 of 2007, of which the complainant had made reference in her civil suit No. 49 of 2010 is concerned, Mr. Kotia has placed on record a report filed by the police authorities under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears on reading such report that on a complaint filed invoking Sections 465, 467, 468, 419, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant, the police authorities had prima facie found that the ownership and possession of shops Nos. 156 and 157 was that of the accused Hasubhai and civil litigation was pending. It appears on reading such report that on a complaint filed invoking Sections 465, 467, 468, 419, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the complainant, the police authorities had prima facie found that the ownership and possession of shops Nos. 156 and 157 was that of the accused Hasubhai and civil litigation was pending. That, the accused Hasubhai has produced documents, which prima facie discloses his ownership whereas the complainant could not produce documents purportedly on the ground that she has lost such documents. On 09.11.2005, therefore, a Summary Report was filed by the police. 10. Mr. S.P. Kotia, learned advocate for the applicants, has relied on the following judgments to contend that when essentially civil suit is pending, criminal proceedings should be quashed and that this is the fit case in the parameters as laid down in the judgment of the State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 SCC (cri) 426 are met and the court should invoke its jurisdiction and quash the complaint. The judgments relied by Mr. Kotia are as under: 1. Apurva Navnitlal vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2013 (3) GLH 358 . 2. Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttrakhand, reported in (Supreme Court) JT 2012 (12) SC 393. 3. Jitendra Laljibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 JX (Gujarat) 1369. 4. M/s. Thermax Ltd. Vs. K.M. Johny, reported in (Supreme Court) 2011 (13) SCC 421 5. Mohanlal Yadram Khandelval Vs. Kantibhai (Gujarat High Court) 2010 JX (Gujarat) 529. 6. Sumitraben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (Gujarat High Court) 2008 JX (Gujarat) 630. 7. S.P. Godrej Vs. Hasmukhlal, reported in 2007 (4) GLR 2864. 8. Nilesh Mansukhlal Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (1) GLH 683 . 9. Jagdish Chandra vs. S.K. Saraf, reported in AIR 1999 SC 217 . 10. George Zacharia Vs. T.K. Varghese, reported in 1994 (4) scale 694 . 11. Thakarsi Lallubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1993(1) GLH (U.J.) 21. 12. Order passed in Cri. Misc App. No. 2599/2013. 13. Narendrakumar Jaynti Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1996 GLR 835 . 14. Kumar Debashish Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2008 CRLJ 2397 . 15. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and Others, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 16. Kishan Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Gurpal Singh. 11. In the submission of Mr. Misc App. No. 2599/2013. 13. Narendrakumar Jaynti Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1996 GLR 835 . 14. Kumar Debashish Vs. State of Orissa, reported in 2008 CRLJ 2397 . 15. State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and Others, reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 16. Kishan Singh (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. Gurpal Singh. 11. In the submission of Mr. Kotia, therefore, looking to the aforesaid circumstances, the First Information Report was nothing but one more attempt to pressurize the accused. According to Mr. Kotia, the complainant Ushaben was in the habit of filing successive litigations civil as well as criminal, including one under Domestic Violence Act. This was an of frustrated litigant and she having failed to secure appropriate relief under a civil suit of 49 of 2010 has resorted to the filing of the present First Information Report, which is nothing but an abuse of process and even otherwise a civil dispute, and therefore, this Court should in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should quash the complaint. Mr. Kotia further contended that what also needs to be appreciated is that in the complaint she has not named the purchaser of the shop, though, she was aware of as is evident from the suit she filed a few days prior to her filing of the complaint. In the suit she has specifically named Mr. Kamlesh Pravinchandra Shah as a subsequent purchaser. When faced with a situation that the suit could fail as a subsequent purchaser was not joined as a party, a civil suit being civil suit No. 190 of 2012 was filed, wherein apart from the present accused being defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the tenant of Shop No. 156 and the subsequent purchaser of shop No. 157 of the Non Trading Corporation namely Madhav Darshan have been arrayed as defendants. Obviously, therefore, that the dispute is civil in nature, which also is an additional factor, the Court should rule in favour of the applicant. 12. Mr. S.M. Kikani, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-original complainant and contended that from the panchnama filed on the basis of the complaint, it is evident that construction had been carried out in the immediate past in the disputed shops which was evident enough to show the intention of the accused to take law in their hands. Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for respondent No. 2-original complainant and contended that from the panchnama filed on the basis of the complaint, it is evident that construction had been carried out in the immediate past in the disputed shops which was evident enough to show the intention of the accused to take law in their hands. Mr. Kikani, further contended that in the year 2007 also a criminal complaint had been filed against the present accused being Criminal Complaint No. 790 of 2007, which showed the conduct of the accused in repeatedly circumventing the law and interfering with the possession of the complainant. 13. Mr. Kotia further contended that merely because a civil suit was filed and in such a civil suit the complainant had failed to obtain an injunction, would not in any manner deter the complainant from exercising her rightful claim to lodge the complaint in question, particularly, when it was categorically observed in the order refusing injunction that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants had proved the question of ownership and/or possession. The accused, therefore, could not draw mileage from merely because the injunction was not granted. 14. Mr. Kotia, further contended that the complaint so filed on 03.02.2010 categorically discloses the pending civil litigation, and therefore, they had disclosed this in the complaint and merely because such civil suit was pending, it cannot be held to be a cause against the complainant. 15. Lastly Mr. Kotia contended that on reading the complaint, ingredients fit enough to disclose commission of offence under Sections 341, 451, 427, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code were made up and the Court, therefore, should not exercise its extraordinary power and quash the complaint. 16. Mr. Himanshu Patel, learned APP has also taken me through the contents of the complaint and submitted that prima facie, case has been made out against the applicants and original-accused. Reading of the First Information Report dated 03.02.2010 and the panchnama and the Commissioner's Report do suggest the complicity of the applicants in commission of the offence. The Commissioner's Report shows carrying out of construction in the disputed shops, and therefore, even if the Court was to come to a conclusion that Section 341 was not attracted, enough it was to satisfy the ingredients for offences under Sections 452 and 457, and therefore, the complaint need not be quashed. 17. The Commissioner's Report shows carrying out of construction in the disputed shops, and therefore, even if the Court was to come to a conclusion that Section 341 was not attracted, enough it was to satisfy the ingredients for offences under Sections 452 and 457, and therefore, the complaint need not be quashed. 17. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the question that needs to be addressed is, whether the First Information Report so filed deserves to be quashed. 18. Let us appreciate the facts, which has led to the filing of the present complaint. The reading of the complaint itself first suggest that what the complaint makes out on a bare reading is that disputes regarding the ownership and possession of shops Nos. 156 and 157 are pending between the parties. The complaint further discloses that shop No. 157 appears to have been sold according to the complainant to some unknown person in violation of family agreement, according to which, the shops should have come to the complainant-Ushaben. A close scrutiny of the complaint further reveals that the grievance appears to be that some glass panes have been removed from the shop. According to the complainant, she has approached the police authorities, but has failed to draw their attention. The shop has been sold to anti social element. 19. Sections 341, 452, 451 and 427 have been mentioned in the complaint. Section 341 pertains to wrongful punishment for wrongful restraint. According to the Section, whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with a simple imprisonment for term as sought in the said section. Section 339 is defined as wrongful restraint as when a person is prevented from proceeding in any direction in which such person has a right to proceed, person wrongfully restrains the other. 20. Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of house tress pass. According to this section, one who commits house tress pass having made preparation for causing harm to any person or for assaulting any person or for wrongfully restraining any person or for committing any fear of harm or of assault of wrongful restraint shall be punished. The term is laid down in the section. 427 of the I.P.C., which is also invoked by the complainant, speaks of mischief causing damage or loss to the amount of Rs. 50/- or upwards. 21. The term is laid down in the section. 427 of the I.P.C., which is also invoked by the complainant, speaks of mischief causing damage or loss to the amount of Rs. 50/- or upwards. 21. Bare reading of the complaint, when read in line with the sections invoked, suggests that the complaint neither discloses as to how and in what manner the action/omission of the accused brings them within the purview of having committed such offences. Nothing is shown in the First Information Report, to satisfy this Court that the ingredients of the sections so invoked are made out. 22. This Court is aware of the fact that merely because civil proceedings are pending criminal proceedings need not be truncated and quashed. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to analyze and compare the set of facts, which may be revealed on examination of a complaint viz-a-viz a plaint in a civil dispute, particularly when in a civil dispute and in a criminal complaint the examination of evidences and the procedure is different. Keeping this yardstick in mind, at the same time, one cannot loose sight of the fact that when the dispute as presented on reading of the First Information Report essentially reveals that such a dispute is of a civil nature and has been given a cloak of a criminal offence, before issuing a process invoking criminal jurisdiction the Court needs to exercise a great deal of caution. 23. On reading of the complaint in hand, what becomes apparent is that the complaint intermingles and is over powered in its averments to suggest that ownership and possession of shops Nos. 156 and 157 are pending. Though, merely civil suit being Civil Suit No. 49 of 2010 has been filed by the complainant would not automatically oust her right to file such a complaint. However, from the averments in the complaint, what reads out and what appropriately seems to pain the complainant is wrongful deprivation of her ownership to the shops Nos. 156 and 157 in question. The averments of the civil suits overlap into the averments made in the complaint. 24. This Court, in the facts of the present case, merely because a criminal complaint is filed invoking Sections 341, 452 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code cannot permit such a complaint to be proceed with. 156 and 157 in question. The averments of the civil suits overlap into the averments made in the complaint. 24. This Court, in the facts of the present case, merely because a criminal complaint is filed invoking Sections 341, 452 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code cannot permit such a complaint to be proceed with. When in addition to the bare ingredients of such Sections are missing from the complaint. Moreover on reading the complaint it becomes clear that the complaint is nothing but mirror image of the plaint of the civil suit filed against the applicants-accused. That the dispute is of a civil nature is writ large on the reading of the complaint. 25. Even, when this is examined in light of the past history of the complainant invoking the criminal machinery, the Final Report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the complaint lodged being 790 of 2007, the reading of the Summary Report indicates that the simmering dispute between the parties was regarding the ownership of the shops. The police authorities have not prima facie found that the ownership of the shops was of those of the accused. A Summary Report was then filed. 26. Mr. S.P. Kotia's submission, therefore, that the dispute essentially revolves around possession and ownership, which is of a civil nature and therefore the criminal complaint needs to be quashed deserves attention. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Kotia in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Thermax Ltd. Vs. K.M. Johny, reported in 2011 (13) SCC pg 412 supports his case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, relying in the earlier decision in case of Alpic Finance Ltd., Vs. P. Sadasivan & Anr., reported in 2001 (3) SCC 513 observed that, when there are situations where the dispute is predominantly a civil wrong and when material produced lead the Court to a conclusion that such facts do not amount to a criminal offence as the ingredients of criminal offences are wanting, the Court should in exercise of its power under Section 482 quash such complaint. 27. Needless to refer to all the judgments which Mr. Kotia has sought in support of his contention. 27. Needless to refer to all the judgments which Mr. Kotia has sought in support of his contention. Even in the case of Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd., reported in 2005 10 SCC 228 , though while dealing with a complaint lodged for an offence of cheating the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision and held as under: "11 In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. (1988) 1 SCC 692 , this Court, after pointing out the grounds on which the criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 482 of the code at preliminary stage by the High Court highlighted that a case of breach of trust is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. While elaborating the same, this Court further held that there would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to criminal offence. Based on the materials in that case, the Court concluded that the case is one of that type where, if at all, the facts may constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offences are wanting." 28. Having examined the facts of the present case, and having found that even the basic reading of the complaint discloses that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature, a conclusion which this Court has arrived at on examination of the complaint, past history of the litigations that are pending, it is a fit case in which extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. be exercised and the complaint so made be quashed. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the FIR being C.R. No-I-30/2010 registered at 'A' Division Police Station, Bhavnagar, dated 03.02.2010, against the applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Application Allowed