JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Das, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for the following relief: “The petitioner prays for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.264 of 2014 dated 12.08.2014, corresponding to G.R. No.3739 of 2014, for offence under Sections 147, 341, 353 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of his ancestral property involved in this case. As per Annexure – 2, the order dated 31.03.2009 under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that as per the allegations made in the F.I.R., the authority had come to evict Manmath Das as well as the petitioner and some other persons. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that said Manmath Das and Durgawati Devi vacated the premises but so far as the petitioner is concerned, he did not vacate the premises. He further submits that for the purposes of vacation of premises, the proper proceeding under the provisions of law including Public Land Encroachment Act is available, but no F.I.R. can be lodged for refusing to vacating the premises. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not committed any illegality by not vacating the premises in his occupation and there is no allegations regarding use of force by the petitioner although, in the F.I.R., it has been stated that a number of persons had assembled to support the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the State submits that a counter-affidavit in this case stating that the authority had gone on the spot in compliance of order dated 09.08.2014 passed by S.D.O., Dhanbad. However, in the counter-affidavit, the order dated 09.08.2014 passed by the S.D.O., Dhanbad has not been filed and further in para – 11 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner or other accused persons did not furnish any evidence before the S.D.O., Dhanbad regarding their right over the property. It has also been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that Jamabandi of the land, which was mutated in the name of Manmath Das, was cancelled, but nothing has been mentioned regarding the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that Jamabandi of the land, which was mutated in the name of Manmath Das, was cancelled, but nothing has been mentioned regarding the petitioner. Further, the statement made by the petitioner with regard to order passed in favour of the petitioner under section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 as contained in Annexure-2, has not been denied and it has not been alleged that the same has also been cancelled. Rather it has been stated about cancellation of Jamabandi of Manmath Das and not that of the petitioner. 6. Counsel for the petitioner in response submits that there is no whisper about cancellation of Jamabandi so far as property claimed by the petitioner is concerned. He further submits that if the respondents are claiming any title over the property, then proper remedy is through civil suit, for which the respondent should have proceeded in accordance with law instead of forcefully trying to throw out the petitioner from the house without any order cancelling Annexure-2 and without any order to evict the petitioner. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that admittedly Jamabandi running in the name of Manmath Das was cancelled and the police party had come for evicting Manmath Das from the concerned property under the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad and the informant was deputed as Magistrate to remove the illegal encroachment by Manmath Das. Manmath Das admittedly surrendered the encroached property. However, the petitioner was also directed to move out of his property although there was no such order so far as the petitioner is concerned and admittedly, there is an order in favour of the petitioner passed under Section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 as contained in Annexure-2 and in such circumstances, there has been some resistance from the local persons. The allegation against the petitioner is that he refused to evict the house in which the petitioner is residing and other persons raised voice in support of the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that there was no order for eviction of the petitioner from any authority, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner including the F.I.R. for the alleged offence is fit to be quashed. 9. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that there was no order for eviction of the petitioner from any authority, the entire criminal proceedings as against the petitioner including the F.I.R. for the alleged offence is fit to be quashed. 9. This Court finds that as per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the petitioner was in his house and the informant had asked the petitioner to evict the house and admittedly, there was no order against the petitioner for such eviction from any authority whatsoever. In such circumstances, asking the petitioner to evict his house was itself not in accordance with law. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner resisted to such directions to evict his house and people of the locality gathered in his support. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the basic ingredients of any offence under I.P.C. much less an offence under Section 353, 188, 341 and 147 of Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner is totally absent and entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and in order the secure the ends of justice, the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with Jorapokhar P.S. Case No.264 of 2014 dated 12.08.2014, corresponding to G.R. No.3739 of 2014 is hereby quashed. 10. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.