ORDER : 1. The present misc. petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed aggrieved from the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal revision petition No.132/2010 (75/2008) whereby the order dated 02.08.2006 negating F.R. No. 17/2004 emanating from F.I.R. No.400/2003 P.S. Kotwali, District Churu, taking cognizance of offence under Sections 457, 380, 201 IPC and Section 203 Rajasthan Municipalities Act and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu was maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submitted the facts in nutshell that an F.I.R. was registered by the Executive Officer of the Municipality, Churu alleging that on 15.12.2003 building of Octroi post No.5 was illegally trespassed and demolished by the present petitioner and also misappropriated entire furniture along with other materials. On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was carried out and a Final Report on the ground of dispute of civil nature was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Churu who after examination of complainant-Ram Kumar under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance and revision against this cognizance order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that the Police after investigation have filed closure report wherein, it was stated that the aforesaid land on which this Octroi check post was constructed belongs to Bhagirath Prasad, who later transferred the same to Mr. R.K. Jain and thereafter who transferred the land to 21 other persons. This report further indicates that ultimately it was present petitioner who purchased this land on 15.01.2003 from Pawan Kumar through a registered sale deed. It was also found during investigation that before abolition of Octroi, a notice was given to Municipality, Churu regarding illegal construction & possession of Octroi post on the land which was owned by previous titleholder of the present petitioner and in pursuant to the notice, Municipality has admitted tenancy and started to pay rent to the owner of the land. These documents are available on record but the complainant had denied the same on the ground that these were forged documents. He further submitted that the chain of source is established by the present petitioner during investigation but learned trial Court had overlooked the result of the investigation. These documents are available on record but the complainant had denied the same on the ground that these were forged documents. He further submitted that the chain of source is established by the present petitioner during investigation but learned trial Court had overlooked the result of the investigation. He further submitted that no criminal act was made out but without examining the material collected during investigation, learned trial Court had taken cognizance thereby exceeding its jurisdiction. He further submitted that no record indicating ownership of Municipality, Churu was produced by the complainant during the investigation or before the trial Court but assuming the oral statement to be gospel truth, the cognizance order was passed. He would further submitted that such approach is abuse of process of law, hence, the petitioner is entitled to seek protection from this Hon’ble Court. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that after submission of final report, additional evidence was produced before the trial Court and on the basis of additional evidence, order of cognizance was passed which is self explanatory. He also submitted that all the issues raised herein are subject matter of evidence and same can be decided on merits during trial and the parties may be directed to face the trial. He would submitted that the documents submitted by the Respondent proved that the check post was constructed by the Municipality, Churu. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the original record which was summoned by this Court in the present petition, as the entire proceedings were stayed by this Court vide order dated 25.11.2011. 6. A perusal of F.I.R. indicates that Mr. Ram Kumar, had filed a written complaint for illegal trespassing, damaging government property, possession of government land, theft and misappropriation etc.. On the basis of this report, investigation was carried out. During the investigation, a site plan was prepared by Mr. Sunil Kumar Bishnoi, RPS wherein on 'x' mark place Octroi Naka was shown as operational prior to so called demolition and tresspass by the petitioner. This 'x' mark indicates that the building line of disputed land is almost same to the persons holding the land on eastern and western side of the present petitioner. Similarly, the actual position on ground was also mentioned in Halat Mauka or site plan. This 'x' mark indicates that the building line of disputed land is almost same to the persons holding the land on eastern and western side of the present petitioner. Similarly, the actual position on ground was also mentioned in Halat Mauka or site plan. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected sale deeds executed by Bhagirath Prasad, Shri R.K. Jain, Sant Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Pawan Kumar etc.. The sale deed executed in favour of the present petitioner indicates the source of land from the beginning. Similarly, a copy of notice under Section 80 C.P.C., as given by Mr. Dhirendra Singh on behalf of Sant Kumar is also part of record. Similarly, letter dated 20.07.2002 in reply to this notice and also recognising ownership of present land, was issued by the Municipality, Churu wherein it was also informed that he can apply for permission to construct building. There are other documents indicating payment of rent for the Octroi post. These aforesaid documents are in relation to the present land and they were collected during investigation by the Police and ultimately, the Police has submitted a final closure report. There was not a single revenue record, submitted by the complainant to suggest ownership in favour of the Municipality, Churu. 7. Of course, the complainant has right to file protest petition and after protest petition the complainant was examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. wherein, the complainant had stated that the signature on letter claimed to be issued by the Municipality is fake and same is forged but the trial Court without resorting to the further inquiry as provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C had taken cognizance against the present petitioner that too only on the basis of statement of the complainant, thereby ignoring a series of documents as collected during the police investigation. Herein no defence except terming the letter as forged was raised by the complainant. Meaning thereby, without resorting to the reasons as given after due investigation while proposing F.R., the trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance. Herein the evidence collected during investigation suggested that if there was any claim regarding ownership of land then same has to substantiated with land revenue record in favor of municipality, Churu. Meaning thereby, without resorting to the reasons as given after due investigation while proposing F.R., the trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance. Herein the evidence collected during investigation suggested that if there was any claim regarding ownership of land then same has to substantiated with land revenue record in favor of municipality, Churu. Assuming that there was serious dispute as regard to the title of the land then same is a dispute of civil nature even then definitely initiation of criminal proceedings would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. 8. It is settled proposition of law that where the allegations made in the report or the complaint, even if they are taken as true at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence and thereafter evidence collected in support of the same also do not disclose the commission of any offence to make out a case against the accused then the proceeding can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. 9. Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Janta Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdhary & ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305 observed as under: "132. The criminal courts are clothed with inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. Such power though unrestricted and undefined should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Courts must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles." 10. It emerged from aforesaid discussions that SHO, P.S. Kotwali, District Churu had filed a closure report F.R. No. 17/2004 in F.I.R. No.400/2003 after detailed investigation with sound reasons supported with title documents but without addressing these reasons as provided in the FR, Ld. trial Court on the basis of oral evidence of complainant proceeded to pass an order of cognizance under Sections 457, 380, 201 IPC and Sec. 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act. 11. trial Court on the basis of oral evidence of complainant proceeded to pass an order of cognizance under Sections 457, 380, 201 IPC and Sec. 203 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions and deliberations, there was no sufficient ground to proceed after submission of closure report/FR by the police hence the order of cognizance dated 02.08.2006 and further confirmation order dated 30.09.2011, by the Courts below were without any basis thus a strong case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the cognizance order is made out in favour of the petitioner. 12. Hence, the Misc. Petition is allowed and the order dated 02.08.2006 for taking cognizance in FR & subsequent protest petition emanating from FIR No.400/2003 P.S. Kotwali, District Churu is hereby quashed and set aside. The FR is accepted and the petitioner is discharged from the aforesaid offences. The record of the trial court be returned immediately. The stay petition is also disposed of.