JUDGMENT : SANJAY DHAR, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged FIR No. 10/2019 for offences under section 427 and 447 of RPC registered with Police Station, Aishmuqam. 2. It appears that the respondent No. 4 had lodged a complaint with Police Station, Aishmuqam, alleging therein that he has a longstanding dispute relating to pathway with the petitioners and that the concerned Tehsildar had visited the site and taken action in the matter. It was further alleged that despite this, the petitioners cut the wire around the orchard of the complainant and uprooted the poles. It was also alleged that some apple trees were damaged by the petitioners thereby causing loss to them. On the basis of this report, the impugned FIR came to be registered and the investigation of the case was set into motion. 3. The petitioners have contended that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 8 kanals under Survey Nos. 69, 69/1 and 576/67 of Village Badigam where they have constructed their residential houses. It is averred that the petitioners are using a pathway through a land which is recorded as Shamilat land under Rule 4 of the Shamilat Rules. The petitioners have gone on to submit that the pathway that is being used by them was encroached upon by the private respondents including the complainant, as a consequence whereof the petitioners had to approach Tehsildar, Pahalgam, by way of an application. It is averred that on 02.04.2016, a team of revenue officials was constituted by Tehsildar, Pahalgam, who, after visiting the site, restored the pathway by removing the encroachment. It is alleged that the private respondents did not stop here but continued their interference in the pathway passing through the Shamilat Najayez land, which compelled the petitioners to approach District Development Commissioner, Anantnag, by way of an application and pursuant thereto, the District Development Commissioner issued directions for restoration of the pathway. It is alleged that on 12.05.2016, Tehsildar, Pahalgam, directed Naib Tehsildar, Pahalgam, to implement order dated 02.04.2016 regarding restoration of the pathway. 4. It is alleged that on 12.05.2016, Tehsildar, Pahalgam, directed Naib Tehsildar, Pahalgam, to implement order dated 02.04.2016 regarding restoration of the pathway. 4. It has been submitted that the private respondents also filed a suit before Learned Sub Judge, Anantnag, seeking a declaration regarding their ownership and possession of land measuring 13 marlas 3½ sirsai under Survey No. 70, land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas under Survey No. 187/27, land measuring 1 kanal under Survey No. 64-min, land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla and 2 sirsai under Survey No. 126 and land measuring 2 marlas under Survey No. 362/126 situated at Badigam. A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference in the pathway leading to the land of the private respondents was also sought. The Learned Sub Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit on 10.12.2016 but after restoration of the suit, a direction was passed by the Learned Sub Judge on 22.07.2017, to Tehsildar, Pahalgam, to carry out aforesaid order dated 02.04.2016. It is further alleged that the private respondents again blocked the pathway and the petitioners again moved an application before Tehsildar, Pahalgam, to constitute a team to restore the pathway and when the private respondents resisted the action of revenue officers, FIR No. 24/2017 for offences under section 341 RPC came to be lodged by Tehsildar, Pahalgam, against the private respondents. It is averred that the pathway was again restored in terms of order dated 14.07.2018 of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, whereafter the private respondents, finding no other alternative to overcome the actions of the revenue officers, lodged the impugned FIR which is absolutely frivolous in nature. 5. With the aforesaid background of facts, the petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that the dispute between them and the private respondents is purely of civil nature relating to pathway and the private respondents have converted the said dispute into a criminal case, which is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the contents of the impugned FIR do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners. 6. No reply has been filed by the private respondents. It is further submitted that the contents of the impugned FIR do not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners. 6. No reply has been filed by the private respondents. However, reply has been filed by the official respondents wherein it has been submitted that there is a running dispute over a pathway leading towards the orchard belonging to the petitioners and as per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, on the day of occurrence, the petitioners forcibly uprooted the poles fixed around the orchard of the private respondents without any rhyme and reason and they also damaged some apple trees. According to official respondents, after investigation of the case, offences alleged in the impugned FIR stand established against the petitioners. 7. During the pendency of this petition, an order came to be passed by this Court on 05.11.2020 whereby the official respondents were directed to file a detailed status report with regard to the witnesses examined by the prosecution and to clarify as to whether the property regarding which FIR has been lodged belongs to the complainant or Union Territory of J&K. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the official respondents have filed another status report dated 28.07.2021 and they have annexed therewith report of the concerned Patwari as also the revenue record. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the Case Diary. 10. As is clear from the facts narrated in the impugned FIR, status report of the official respondents and the averments made in the petition, there is a longstanding dispute going on between petitioners and the private respondents in respect of pathway. While the petitioners claim that the pathway leading to their property is situated on Shamilat Najayez land which comes within the purview of Section 4 of the Shamilat Rules whereas claim of the private respondents is that the site of occurrence i.e. the place where the encroachment has taken place is their proprietary land. 11. In order to constitute an offence under section 447 RPC, the prosecution has to show on the basis of the material that trespass was committed by the accused with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 of the RPC. Thus, the prosecution has to show that the entry or unlawful occupation of the accused must be with an intent: (i) to commit an offence. Thus, the prosecution has to show that the entry or unlawful occupation of the accused must be with an intent: (i) to commit an offence. (ii) to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property. It is not that every trespass by itself is criminal. The prosecution has to show that the trespass was committed by the accused with intent to commit an offence or intimidate etc. the person in possession of the property. An accused may lay a bona-fide claim and right in respect of the land in question and he may not have a right to the land on which alleged trespass has been committed but unless it is shown that he did so with an intention to intimidate etc. the person in possession, the offence of trespass is not constituted. 12. Coming to the facts of the instant case and the material available on record, the petitioners have placed on record documents to show that there is a longstanding dispute going on between them and the private respondents in respect of the pathway. They have placed on record various orders passed by the revenue officers from time to time whereby directions have been issued to the private respondents for removal of encroachment of the pathway in question and for restoration thereof. A number of orders passed by different revenue officers have been placed on record by the petitioners. Copies of these orders are also available in the Case Diary, which means that the investigating agency has collected this material during the investigation of the case. 13. The petitioners have also placed on record copy of the plaint filed by private respondents wherein the said respondents have sought declaration and injunction in respect of the pathway which is subject matter of dispute between the parties. The petitioners have placed on recorded a copy of order dated 22.03.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge, Anantnag, in the aforesaid suit wherein the Learned Sub Judge has observed that the pathway in question is shown as Shamilat land under Shamilat Rules, which dislodges the claim of complainant/private respondents to the extent that the petitioners herein are seeking pathway through their proprietary land. The petitioners have also placed on record copy of the order dated 14.07.2018 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, whereby he has allowed the application of the petitioners regarding restoration of pathway leading to their land. 14. The petitioners have also placed on record copy of the order dated 14.07.2018 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, whereby he has allowed the application of the petitioners regarding restoration of pathway leading to their land. 14. The official respondents have, pursuant to the order dated 05.11.2020 passed by this Court, placed on record report of Patwari concerned who has in clear terms reported that the disputed land is the land defined under Shamilat Rules and it was enclosed with a wire which has been removed by the officers of the Revenue Department. He has further reported that on the spot the petitioners have not caused any interference. 15. From the foregoing material on record, prima facie, it is shown that the disputed pathway, which is the site of occurrence, is Shamilat Najayez land and not the land belonging to the private respondent or at least there is a bona-fide dispute between the parties as to the status of the site of occurrence. 16. When we have a look at the Case Diary, the conclusion of the investigating agency that the offence of trespass has been committed by the petitioners is based upon oral statements made by the witnesses. However, the revenue record and the reports of the revenue officers as well as the orders passed by the revenue officers from time to time prima facie favour the version of the petitioners. Thus, there appears to be a bona-fide dispute between the parties as regards the possession of the disputed pathway. In order to constitute an offence of criminal trespass, the prosecution has to first establish that the property on which trespass has been committed is in possession of the complainant. In the instant case, the material on record does not establish that the site of occurrence was in possession of complainant party and, in fact, the documents collected by the investigating agency show that the petitioners have a bona-fide claim over the disputed pathway. 17. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, the criminal proceedings for illegal encroachment, damage and trespass over the land in question can be undertaken only after adjudication of the rights of the properties over the land in dispute by the revenue courts. Until then, neither any criminal proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners nor they can be prosecuted for having caused any damage. Until then, neither any criminal proceedings can be initiated against the petitioners nor they can be prosecuted for having caused any damage. Thus, the material on record does not make out a case of criminal trespass or mischief against the petitioners. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned FIR would be an abuse of process of law and, as such, the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom deserve to be quashed. 19. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. 20. The Case Diary be returned to the learned counsel for official respondents.