JUDGMENT : (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 1. The present applicant, in the present C- 482 Application, has put a challenge to the charge- sheet, and summoning order dated 06.05.2022, as well as, the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 3330 of 2022 (Case Crime No. 3 of 2022) “State Vs. Rajesh Kakkar and another”, which is presently pending consideration before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Dehradun, for allegedly trying the present applicant for his involvement in commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342, 452, 506 & 120-B of I.P.C. 2. To be precise, the parties to the proceedings, have already been under litigation in a prior instituted Civil Suit No. 839 of 2020 “Anup Singh Vs. Rajesh Kakkar”, in the suit thus instituted at the behest of the respondents, the principal relief, which was sought therein, though allegedly it was for the purposes of declaration, but in fact, if a judicial scrutiny is made to the relief sought, in fact, it was not a declaration of right in relation to a immovable property, described in the suit, but rather interpreted to be a declaration to be qua the alleged unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.09.1999, because, the modulation of relief, in the said suit, which was instituted on 14.08.2020, was formulated, as follows: “The plaintiff prays as follows:- (A) It be declared that by virtue of verbal arrangement and subsequent agreement dated 30.12.1999 detailed in the plaint, grant made and permission granted to the plaintiff in respect of the property fully detailed and described in the plan annexed to this plaint is irrevocable in view of the plaintiff having been granted the rights in the land subject matter of the aforesaid property and the plaintiff acting upon the licence has made constructions of permanent nature by incurring exorbitant and further that the plaintiff is entitled to peacefully and quietly hold, possess, use, enjoy and reside in the property during his lifetime and after him his heirs and the families of the heirs are entitled thereto in the same manner as the plaintiff.” 3. It chanced so, that an unforeseen event has chanced, on 29.12.2021, where it was alleged that present applicant along with his allies as referred to in the F.I.R. No. 3 of 2022 dated 15.01.2022, is said to have barged into the property, which was allegedly claimed to be occupied by the present respondent no.2, on the basis of the so called unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.12.1999. 4. At this stage, this Court is not going into a detailed scrutiny of the F.I.R., because all their inter se rights, is yet to be decided on merits in the pending suit, but the reference to the said F.I.R., is only made for the purpose because, the incident, which has been narrated in the F.I.R., which has been allegedly said to have chanced on 29.12.2021, has been taken as to be the basis for institution of the subsequent Suit No. 35 of 2022 “Anup Singh Vs. Rajesh Kakkar”, which was filed by the respondent no.2, wherein they have sought for the following relief: “A. A permanent injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants and all persons claim through or under them for interfering in any manner in the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the property shown in green color in the plan annexed to this plaint and further from creating third party rights in the property shown in the annexed plain in violation of the terms of the agreement dated 30.12.1999 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1. B. A mandatory injunction be issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to remove the iron fences fixed in between point B and C marked in the plan annexed to this plaint and to fix the said fence in between point A and B marked in the annexed plaint within a time to be fixed by the learned court and on failure of the defendants to do so, the said work be got done through the agency of the court at the cost of the defendants. C. Full cost of suit be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant. D. any other relief in addition to or in substitution of the relief claimed above be also granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 5. C. Full cost of suit be awarded to the plaintiff and against the defendant. D. any other relief in addition to or in substitution of the relief claimed above be also granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 5. In the Suit No. 35 of 2022 “Anup Singh Vs. Rajesh Kakar and others”, as filed by the present respondent no.2, particularly, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, had made a reference, that in the light of the pleadings raised in the paragraph no.30 of the said plaint, the necessity arose to institute the suit in order to athwart, the act of the applicant of his forceful interference in the property, on the ground that the earlier Suit No. 839 of 2022 “Anup Singh Vs. Rajesh Kakkar”, which was pending before the court of learned 6th Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, was for the purposes of grant of decree of declaration and permanent injunction (which though at this stage, is an aspect, not being ventured by this Court, which is yet to be considered, when the suit itself is to be decided on merits). 6. In the Suit in question, the basis of cause of action for filing the suit has been on the ground that of the alleged uncalled for incident, which has chanced on 29.12.2021, and hence, the relief was modulated. 7. It is not in dispute inter se amongst the parties, that in fact, in both the suits, the basis is principal deed i.e. an unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.12.1999, but the cause of action, which has been derived in the subsequent suit, for the grant of decree for permanent injunction, is alleged to be on the ground of an allegation of altercation, which has been taken place in pursuance to the F.I.R., which is the subject matter of the present C-482 Application, on which the cognizance has been taken by the court below. 8. The said aspect about the incident narrated i.e. dated 29.12.2021, is being sought to be denied by the learned counsel for the applicant on the ground, that immediately after 15.12.2021, in fact, he after selling the property to one Mr. Ankit Sharma, the applicant alleges to have left and gone to Puna, where he claims that, he is residing. 9. The said aspect about the incident narrated i.e. dated 29.12.2021, is being sought to be denied by the learned counsel for the applicant on the ground, that immediately after 15.12.2021, in fact, he after selling the property to one Mr. Ankit Sharma, the applicant alleges to have left and gone to Puna, where he claims that, he is residing. 9. The said plea of the applicant, has been answered to the contrary by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the this analogy drawn by the present applicant to save himself from the prosecution of the Criminal Case No. 3330 of 2022 (Case Crime No. 3 of 2020) “State Vs. Rajesh Kakkar & another”, is belied for the reason being that, it’s on the same date, that the applicant is alleged to have registered an agreement for sale, as well as, a registered lease deed and a registered power of attorney, which was executed in favour of Mr. Amit Sharma, in relation to different part of the property, which included the property, which was alleged to be in possession of the present respondent no.2. 10. It is not in dispute, that these registered documents of 15.12.2021, did related to the same subject matter, that is the immovable property, which was the subject matter of the earlier instituted two suits, i.e. Suit No. 839 of 2020, and Suit No. 35 of 2022, upon being asked with the questions, that when the respondent/plaintiff had got the knowledge of the registered agreement for sale, registered lease deed, and registered power of attorney, why he did not resort to an appropriate recourse available to him under law to challenge the same before the competent civil court. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent no.2, that since the knowledge of these documents was attributed to them, at a much later stage, they could not have challenged the propriety of those documents, in the subsequent Suit No. 35 of 2022, which was filed by him. 12. The question would be that, as to whether now a civil litigation, which has been a long drawn proceedings, which was drawn at the behest of the plaintiff-respondent no.2, could be altered to be given a shape of a criminal proceedings, by registering an F.I.R. dated 05.11.2022, in relation to an incident, which has been alleged to have chanced on 29.12.2021. 13. 13. The answer to, it would be, that it is an admitted case in the F.I.R. also, that the two documents dated 30.12.1999, and the alleged incident dated 29.12.2021, is a fact, which has been admitted by the complainant-Anup Singh, in that view of the situation, when the incident of forceful interference in the property, has chanced on 29.12.2021, this Court does not finds any logic, as to why, the criminal proceedings, would be said to be the foundation to redress the grievances against the alleged illegal act of the applicant of creating interest over the immovable property, which has been claimed by the respondent no.2, to be belonging to him. 14. In fact, the F.I.R., and the set of allegations, leveled therein, it was nothing, but an attempt to give the dispute, which persisted amongst themselves a criminal colour by registration of the said F.I.R., though in fact it actually entail a decision to be rendered by the competent civil court, with regard to the inter se rights amongst themselves in relation to the property, which has to be decided by the regular civil suit, already plead by the respondent and were pending before competent court, without challenge being given to the registered documents executed by applicants. 15. Even, if the contents of the F.I.R., are taken into consideration, in its totality, all the allegations levelled in it have got an inter related allegations related to the properties, which were subject matter of the unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.12.1999, and the various other registered documents, executed by the applicant on 15.12.2021. 16. In that eventuality, this Court is of the opinion that, in fact the inter se controversy amongst themselves, basically which relates to the immovable property, it ought to be resolved, and it could have been only effectively resolved, when the plaintiff-respondent no.2 herein put a challenge to the registered documents, which were executed by the applicant on 15.12.2021, which were admittedly registered in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The alternative recourse adopted of registration of the F.I.R., under the philosophy of the alleged altercation dated 29.12.2021, will not be a solution to the problem, and their inter se dispute, as it will not given any logical end except for the prosecution of the present applicant for the alleged offences, which has been referred to therein, which also doesn’t seems to apparently established. 17. In that eventuality, and for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view, that to what effect would be the registered documents dated 15.12.2021, qua its effect on the basis of the unregistered agreement for construction dated 30.12.1999, would have in relation to the property, which has been claimed by the parties to the C-482 Application, that ought to be resolved by the plaintiff-respondent herein by making the necessary amendment in the suit itself, by putting all the controversies at one platform, to be adjudicated in order to give a finality to the determination of rights by an effective adjudication by the civil court. It cannot be ruled out that registration of the F.I.R. in facts of the instant case rather happens to be in contravention to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in the judgment of “State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal” as reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. 18. Hence, for that view, and the reasons the criminal proceedings drawn as against the present applicant by way of Criminal Case No. 3330 of 2022 “State Vs. Rajesh Kakkar”, would hereby stand quashed. However, it is made clear that whatsoever observations has been made by this Court, in this C-482 Application, would be only exclusively for the purposes of this C-482 Application, and it would be open for the present parties to the C-482 Application to raise all their contentions, rights and liability, which they contend, that it is being either granted or effected by the deed dated 15.12.2021, by agitating the same in their two pending civil suits, before the Civil Court being Suit No. 839 of 2020 and Suit No. 35 of 2022, as it has been preferred by them. 19. Subject to the aforesaid, the C-482 Application, would hereby stand allowed.