JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. Since all these misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arise out of the common facts, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: Misc. Petition No.364/2018:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and: (i) The FIR No.578/2017 dated 25.07.2017 Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur and its entire subsequent investigation may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." Misc. Petition No.374/2018:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and: (i) The FIR No.583/2017 dated 28.12.2017 Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur and its entire subsequent investigation may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." Misc. Petition No.376/2018:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application filed by the petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and: (i) The FIR No.579/2017 dated 25.12.2017 Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur and its entire subsequent investigation may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." Misc. Petition No.1330/2018:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed, impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1, Udaipur City (South) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Further, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct de novo investigation in the matter, or in the alternative, the investigation should be done by superior agency in the interest of justice. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be passed." Misc. Petition No.1984/2018:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be passed." Misc. Petition No.1984/2018:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and proceedings initiated under Section 107, 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. lodged at the behest of the Respondent No.2 against the petitioners, pending as criminal misc. case No.1432/2018 before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City, Udaipur), titled as "State of Rajasthan Vs. Sushil Jain & Another." may kindly be quashed and set aside." 3. Misc. Petitions No.364/2018, 374/2018 and 376/2018 seek quashment of the FIR and the entire investigation pursuant thereto; Misc. Petition No.1330/2018 lays a challenge to the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned court below, taking cognizance of the offence against the present petitioners; and Misc. Petition No.1984/2018 calls into question the proceedings initiated under Sections 107 and 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. lodged at the behest of respondent/complainant against the petitioners, as mentioned in the aforequoted prayer clauses. 4. Misc. Petition No.364/2018 is for quashing of the proceedings of FIR No.578/2017 lodged by complainant Kuldeep Jain at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 143, 149, 427, 447 and 384 IPC, alleging therein that the land situated in Araji No.91, 92, 93 & 94 was purchased by his father Moolchand. It was narrated in the FIR that one Fateh Lal s/o Amarchand, known to the complainant's father, got certain land transferred in his name, but the possession continued with the complainant. The allegation in the FIR was that on 24.12.2017, the above-mentioned Fateh Lal, his sons Sushil Kumar and Raj Kumar alongwith 10-15 anti-social elements threatened the complainant that they will take possession of the land, and hence, the complainant has filed the said FIR on 25.12.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Fateh Lal was the co-owner of the land situated in Araji No.91, 92, 93 & 94, as 24 persons jointly purchased the land in question, in which about five shares were there of the accused persons and five shares belonged to the complainant, whereas the other cosharers had the rest of the portions. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding the land in question had been initiated by the SHO, Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur before the learned A.C.J.M., Udaipur City on 10.01.2018, even when it was on record that the petitioners were co-khatedars of the land and no consensus regarding the mutual division thereof had taken place. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on a bare reading of FIR No.578/2017 dated 25.12.2017, no cognizable offence is made out against the present petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court, the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.157/2018 (Sushil and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan arising out of FIR No.579/2017), whereby this Hon'ble Court has observed that in the facts and circumstances, it did not appear that any cognizable offence in relation to the present dispute was made out. 9. The relevant portion of the aforementioned order dated 11.01.2018 reads as under: "I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. Ex facie, the FIR No.579/2017 in relation whereof the petitioners have been arrested, does not indicate that the police had received any FIR revealing commission of cognizable offences in relation to the plot in question, on the basis whereof, the intervention of police was warranted. The FIR, reveals that the SHO directed Shri Kuldeep Jain to report the matter at the police station. He allegedly reported the matter to the police and immediately thereafter, called the policemen at the scene of occurrence. The police constables reached to the place of construction in the purported exercise of prevention of breach of peace and on seeing them, the petitioners started running away and were allegedly falling down while running away. This fact clearly indicates that the policemen were trying to cover up for the possible injuries received by the petitioners in the incident." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that a revenue suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been instituted by complainant Kuldeep Jain against the present petitioners before the SDO, Girwa, Udaipur, which is pending. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that a revenue suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction under Sections 88, 53 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has been instituted by complainant Kuldeep Jain against the present petitioners before the SDO, Girwa, Udaipur, which is pending. 11. Paras No.1 to 4 of the aforementioned suit, alongwith its prayer clause, read as under:- image 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that that on a bare reading of the pleadings of the suit, it becomes clear that the property was jointly owned by the parties, though the claimants claimed restoration of the title in themselves. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the title, the measurement according to the metes and bounds, should have taken place, and accordingly, the partition should be declared and respective shares should be given to the respective persons. 14. The subsequent facts noted are that on the date of lodging of FIR No.578/2017 i.e. 25.12.2017 itself, the SHO, Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur reached the land in question, after receiving a call from the complainant regarding the present petitioners making efforts to take forceful possession of the land in question. After lodging of the FIR when the police party reached the spot of the property, five accused persons were arrested, but before being arrested, they attacked the police party and damaged the police vehicles, while causing injuries to some of the police personnel. 15. Upon immediate and hurried action of the police upon the earlier FIR No.578/2017, the next FIR bearing No.579/2017 pertaining to the said incident was registered by the police on 25.12.2017 itself. The dispute was having the same background, and thus, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, the second FIR was registered to put more pressure upon the petitioners. 16. Another FIR No.583/2017 was lodged on 28.12.2017 by one Mahesh Chandra making the same allegations regarding Araji No.91, 92, 93 & 94, while alleging that the petitioners were threatening to illegally dispossess the complainant. 17. 16. Another FIR No.583/2017 was lodged on 28.12.2017 by one Mahesh Chandra making the same allegations regarding Araji No.91, 92, 93 & 94, while alleging that the petitioners were threatening to illegally dispossess the complainant. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the said FIR did not constitute any cognizable offence, and it was admitted in the FIR that the complainant, his father and other relatives sold 19/54th part of the land to Mool Chand Jain through Fateh Lal Jain for certain consideration, and thus, the dispute was an offshoot of the same land in question. 18. Learned Public Prosecutor however states that the investigation is complete, but the charge-sheet has not been filed, as there is an interim order dated 08.02.2018 passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.374/2018 against filing of the charge-sheet pertaining to FIR No.583/2017. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in their rejoinder arguments, submitted that arising out of the same transaction, another FIR No.582/2018 was lodged. Though, the said FIR was almost on the same facts, but the police proposed final report/closure report in regard thereto. 20. The fourth petition i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1330/2018 arises out of an order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1, Udaipur City (South) pertaining to FIR No.579/2017, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. 21. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the injuries upon the police personnel are there on record, and the accused persons were creating law and order situation, which was being dealt with as per the investigation already conducted. 22. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has not been properly investigated by the concerned investigating officer, as admittedly, the revenue suit has been filed by the complainant himself seeking partition of the property in question, and therefore, it cannot be prima facie a case of trespass. Moreover, on a bare reading of the first FIR, no cognizable offence is made out against the present petitioners. 23. The observations, as reproduced hereinabove, made by this Hon'ble Court, while adjudicating the aforementioned bail application also are relevant to the dispute. 24. Moreover, on a bare reading of the first FIR, no cognizable offence is made out against the present petitioners. 23. The observations, as reproduced hereinabove, made by this Hon'ble Court, while adjudicating the aforementioned bail application also are relevant to the dispute. 24. The far reaching impact of the civil dispute being resolved through criminal proceedings is reflected in the facts of the case, where multiple FIRs i.e. No.578/2017, 579/2017, 582/2017 and 583/2017 of similar nature have been registered, and the police itself has found no offence to be made out against the present petitioners in connection with FIR No.582/2017. 25. This Court has also seen the khatedari record of the concerned Araji No.91, 92, 93 & 94, and finds that the land is recorded in the name of family members of the accused persons also, and hence, it cannot be simply said that they were in illegal possession or trespassers of the property in question. 26. Thus, in light of the aforesaid, this Court quashes the complete investigation that has taken place in connection with FIR No.578/2017, 579/2017 and 583/2017 lodged at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur alongwith the charge-sheet and the cognizance taken by the learned court below in connection with FIR No.579/2017 vide order dated 06.03.2018 as well as other subsequent proceedings, if any, pursuant to the aforesaid FIRs. This Court directs that the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur shall appoint an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police, who shall make an independent investigation into the matter, and without being prejudiced by the earlier investigation or the charge-sheet or the impugned order of cognizance in FIR No.579/2017, fresh investigation shall be made after taking into consideration the consequences of the pending revenue suit, the khatedari record as well as the observations made by this Hon'ble Court in the bail order, as quoted above. The said investigation shall be completed within a period of six months from today. 27. It is however, made clear that this order shall not prejudice the revenue proceedings between the parties or the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. However, any order in pursuance of FIR No.578/2017, 579/2017 and 583/2017 shall not prejudice the fresh investigation to be made. The investigation to be made afresh shall be without arresting any of the parties in question. It is however, made clear that this order shall not prejudice the revenue proceedings between the parties or the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. However, any order in pursuance of FIR No.578/2017, 579/2017 and 583/2017 shall not prejudice the fresh investigation to be made. The investigation to be made afresh shall be without arresting any of the parties in question. However, the parties shall be required to cooperate, participate and join the investigation, as and when required by the concerned investigating officer. 28. Needless to say, in view of the aforesaid observations, proceedings initiated under Sections 107 and 116(3) Cr.P.C. lodged by the complainant, which are pending as Criminal Misc. Case No.1432/2018 before the learned Additional District Magistrate (City, Udaipur), titled as "State of Rajasthan Vs. Sushil Jain & Another." also stand quashed and set aside. 29. Before parting with this order, it is pertinent to note that the order of cognizance dated 06.03.2018 was despite the court observing that the interim order of this Court restraining the police from filing the charge-sheet was passed on 08.02.2018, whereas the charge-sheet was already filed on 29.01.2018. This Court finds it impalpable that the charge-sheet filed contrary to the interim orders of this Hon'ble Court, even if it belatedly came to the knowledge of the court or the authority, could have allowed the learned court below to proceed with the cognizance and further proceedings without prior permission of this Court. 30. In light of the aforesaid observations and directions, the present misc. petitions stand disposed of.