JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioners have approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned order dated 29.8.2019, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur in Private Complaint No. 39-1 of 2013, wherein. after recording preliminary as well as precharge evidence, the Magistrate has concluded that there were sufficient grounds to frame charges against the accused persons (petitioners) for commission of offence punishable under Section 434 and 506 (II) of read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to complaint preferred by respondent, on 21.12.2011, land of respondent was demarcated and boundary marks were fixed by the Local Commissioner, which were uprooted by one Champa Devi W/o Hans Raj on 1.4.2012, regarding which separate complaint has been filed against Champa Devi, which is pending adjudication before the Magistrate. As per complaint, respondent applied for restoration of boundary marks and Local Commissioner came on spot on 23.1.2013 and restored the boundary marks already fixed by him on 21.12.2011. 3. It is further allegation in the complaint that on 11.3.2013 at about 1:00 P.M. boundary marks were restored by the Local Commissioner in presence of complainant and accused persons and other witnesses, but petitioners with common intention, forcibly entered into the land of complainant and with aggressive behavior threw away boundary marks fixed by the Local Commissioner as well as (gainti) Pickaxe and started quarreling with complainant and pushed and beat complainant with threat to kill him in future. As per complaint, respondent-complainant approached the Police by visiting Police Station Talai, who recorded the complaint, but did not take any action, compelling the respondent to file private complaint dated 12.4.2012, i.e. present complaint under Sections 427, 447, 147, 149, 434, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In preliminary evidence, respondent-complainant Mohar Singh appeared as CW-1 and stated that after some time of fixing of boundary marks on 21.4.2012, Champa Devi had removed some of boundary marks and thereafter other accused also removed the boundary marks. After that Local Commissioner came on the spot on 23.1.2013 in compliance of order passed by SDO (Civil) for fixing boundary marks, but petitioners flatly refused to assent for fixing boundary marks and for a considerable long time they exchanged hot arguments. After that Local Commissioner came on the spot on 23.1.2013 in compliance of order passed by SDO (Civil) for fixing boundary marks, but petitioners flatly refused to assent for fixing boundary marks and for a considerable long time they exchanged hot arguments. Thereafter, on 11.3.2013 at noon, Local Commissioner again tried to fix the boundary marks, but petitioners came on the spot aggressively and removed the boundary marks so fixed by Local Commissioner and started quarreling with threat to kill respondent. This time also, despite lodging complaint with the Police, no action was taken which caused the respondent to file private complaint. 5. CW-2 Prem Singh retired Consolidation Officer, appointed as Local Commissioner by Tehsildar to demarcate and fix the boundary marks re-iterated the fact of fixing of boundary marks on 21.11.2012 and removal thereof noticed by him on 11.3.2013 on visiting the spot and his attempt to re-fix the boundary marks, which were uprooted with further statement that he was not allowed to do so and some boys, who were inclined to quarrel, even intended to beat him. He also deposed that there were only three Police officials, who could not control them. 6. CW-3 Ganesh a Police official posted in Police Station Talai, in his preliminary statement has stated that they visited the spot on 23.1.2013, but petitioner did not allow them to fix/re-fix the boundary marks and as and when they visited the spot for putting permanent boundary marks, petitioners did not allow to do so, but started quarreling. 7. Manoj Kumar Forest Guard has been examined as CW-4, who has stated that on 23.1.2013 petitioners did not allow to fix the boundary marks, which were being fixed on the boundary of land of respondent Mohar Singh and Forest Department, as land belonging to Forest Department is abutting to the land of respondent Mohar Singh, and petitioners did not allow to fix such boundary marks despite 6-7 visits of the concerned authorities/officials including him. 8. Respondent alongwith complaint had also filed certain documents, including copy of Police report, orders of Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta/Executive Magistrate, Jhandutta. 9. Considering the material placed before him, petitioners were summoned by the Magistrate. Thereafter, pre-charge evidence of CW-1 Mohar Singh, CW-2 Prem Singh and CW-3 HHC Ganesh was again recorded and this time witnesses was also subjected to cross-examination. 10. Respondent alongwith complaint had also filed certain documents, including copy of Police report, orders of Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta/Executive Magistrate, Jhandutta. 9. Considering the material placed before him, petitioners were summoned by the Magistrate. Thereafter, pre-charge evidence of CW-1 Mohar Singh, CW-2 Prem Singh and CW-3 HHC Ganesh was again recorded and this time witnesses was also subjected to cross-examination. 10. In examination-in-chief, Mohar Singh has stated that on 13.3.2013, Police and Tehsildar visited the spot for fixing the boundary marks which were uprooted by the petitioners and when Tehsildar attempted to fix boundary marks he was not allowed to do so by the petitioners with threat to break legs of Tehsildar, in case he would be insisting for fixing boundary marks. He has further stated that he has not lodged any other complaint against the petitioners and later on he has admitted that the complaint titled Mohar Singh Vs. Champa Devi was filed by him before the Magistrate in Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, which was dismissed on 21.2.2015. 11. CW-2 Prem Singh in his statement has stated that he had visited the spot in compliance of order passed by Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta and when he tried to fix the boundary marks on 13.1.2013, he was not allowed to do so by the petitioners and petitioners were inclined to quarrel on the spot and he made a report Ex. PW-2/A, which is pending adjudication in the Court. In cross-examination he has re-iterated that he had visited the spot on 13.1.2013 for demarcation and further that on the spot he had not fixed boundary marks, with self statement that he was not allowed to do so. 12. CW-3 HHC Ganesh has stated that during their visit on spot on 23.1.2013, except Onkar and Asha Devi, no one else was there and no quarrel took place in his presence on the spot with further clarification that there were only arguments with each other, but no one was pushed or subjected to fist blows. 13. Copy of record was summoned from the Trial Court. Perusal thereof reflects that on 23.1.2013 Naib Tehsildar had directed the Local Commissioner (retired Tehsildar Prem Singh Daroch) to visit the spot with Police to carry on proceedings in accordance with law with the help of Police of Police Station Talai and furnish report. 13. Copy of record was summoned from the Trial Court. Perusal thereof reflects that on 23.1.2013 Naib Tehsildar had directed the Local Commissioner (retired Tehsildar Prem Singh Daroch) to visit the spot with Police to carry on proceedings in accordance with law with the help of Police of Police Station Talai and furnish report. Tehsildar, vide order dated 12.2.2013, had also directed the SHO Police Station Talai to provide Police officials, including lady Police official for completing the work of fixing the boundary marks. Copy of report submitted by Prem Singh Daroch indicates that he was directed by the Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta on 23.1.2013 and in compliance thereto he visited the spot on 11.3.2013, but at that time petitioners did not allow to re-fix the boundary marks, which were uprooted. According to him, petitioners were hurling loudly by uttering that they would not allow to fix the boundary marks in any circumstances as they had filed an appeal against demarcation before SDM which was pending adjudication and whatever be the decision in the appeal, boundary marks would be fixed only thereafter. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate the plea for quashing the proceedings has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2008) 12 SCC 531 ; Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, (2004) 7 SCC 338 ; and Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2004) 13 SCC 324 . 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed quashing of proceedings and has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 753 ; and State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, AIR 2017 SC 3698 . 16. State of Maharashtra and another, (2004) 13 SCC 324 . 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed quashing of proceedings and has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Som Mittal Vs. Government of Karnataka, (2008) 3 SCC 753 ; and State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, AIR 2017 SC 3698 . 16. It is well settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the High Court, inter alia, to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, and further that at the time of summoning the accused, uncontroverted allegations made in FIR or in complaint and evidence collected in support thereof is to be considered and in case it discloses commission of any offence and make out a case even to suspect commission of offence by the accused, Magistrate can take cognizance and summon the accused person, and also that at the time of framing of charge, merits of the material on record is not to be evaluated or assessed by the Magistrate in order to ascertain conviction or acquittal of the accused persons, but the Magistrate has to consider as to whether there is sufficient material on record to establish that a prima facie case is made out for subjecting the accused to trial or not. Evaluation or assessment of material is to be carried out by the Magistrate for the purpose of conviction by considering the material placed on record in accordance with law but after framing of charges. In case at the time of framing of charges there is no sufficient material to conclude that material does not disclose, prima facie, commission of offence as alleged in the Police report or complaint, the Magistrate is empowered as well as supposed to discharge the accused. 17. In case at the time of framing of charges there is no sufficient material to conclude that material does not disclose, prima facie, commission of offence as alleged in the Police report or complaint, the Magistrate is empowered as well as supposed to discharge the accused. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with respect to allegations of removal of boundary marks in the year 2012, respondent/complainant had already preferred a complaint against Champa Devi, which was dismissed in 2015 and from the evidence led by the complainant including the Local Commissioner, it is apparent that thereafter boundary marks were not re-fixed, but the allegation is that Local Commissioner was not allowed to do so and, therefore, no case under Section 434 IPC is made out and further that, for absence of evidence of ingredients for commission of offence under Section 434 IPC, there is no sufficient material to proceed further with the trial under Section 506 IPC also. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that even if it is considered that boundary marks were not fixed after 2012 and there is absence of ingredients regarding commission of offence by the petitioner under Section 434 IPC, then also the complainant and his witnesses have categorically deposed that Local Commissioner was not allowed to fix the boundary marks under threat of violence which is sufficient to proceed further against the petitioners under Section 506 IPC. 19. After taking into consideration submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as material on record, but without commenting regarding the veracity of the statements of witnesses and merits of the rival contention of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a case where there is no sufficient material to frame charge against the petitioners, at least under Section 506 IPC at this stage. Needless to say, it does not mean that this Court has concluded that petitioners have committed offence under Section 506 IPC. Such allegations are to be evaluated by the trial Court on completion of trial, by taking into consideration material placed before it. At this stage, this Court has considered the material only for the purpose as to whether there is sufficient material to continue the trial or for want of insufficient material trial deserves to be closed by quashing the impugned order, as prayed. 20. At this stage, this Court has considered the material only for the purpose as to whether there is sufficient material to continue the trial or for want of insufficient material trial deserves to be closed by quashing the impugned order, as prayed. 20. It is made clear that observations made in this order have been made without commenting upon the merits of the contents of the complaint and evidence recorded by the Magistrate, preliminary as well as pre-charge, but only considering as to whether the material on record is sufficient to consider that prima facie there is possibility of commission of offence by the accused persons and, therefore, these observations shall not be construed to have been made with respect to merits of the allegations leveled in the complaint and re-iterated in the preliminary as well as pre-charge evidence and complainant, after framing of charge, has to prove his case in accordance with law, merits whereof shall be considered by the Magistrate without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order. 21. With the aforesaid observations petition is dismissed with direction to the parties to appear before Judicial Magistrate, Jhandutta District Bilaspur, H.P. on 1st June, 2023 as it has been informed that after creation of Court at Jhandutta present case has been transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhandutta, and after appearance of parties before the concerned Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed further in accordance with law with endeavour to conclude the trial, with active cooperation of the parties by not taking unnecessary adjournments, as expeditiously as possible. The petition stands disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any. Record be sent to the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Jhandutta, forthwith.