JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This application is filed on behalf of the petitioner above named seeking quashing of the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in General Register No. 2583 of 2014 arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 164 of 2014 whereby and where under the Addi tional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna has been pleased to take cognizance for offence punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Prosecution story in short is that the informant is the tenant of the petitioner and was doing a small business under the name and style of M/S Harjit Automobiles situated at New Dak Bungalow Road, Patna since last 37 years. 4. It is further alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that informant was harassed by the petitioner. Moreover, on 26.04.2014 at around 3 P.M. two men entered the cabin of the informant and abused him and warned that if he will not vacate the premises then he has to pay Rs. 10 lakhs and have to face consequences. Once petitioner along with his two sons attacked the informant and threatened him. Informant alleges that he has been regularly paying rent and on asking for receipt, he was threatened to vacate the premises. 5. He further submits that subsequent to the institution of the FIR, the police conducted the investigation and submitted charge sheet vide Final Form No. 365 of 2019 dated 31.07.2019 under offences punishable under Section 452, 341, 323, 524, 506, 387, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner next submits that pursuant to the above, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna by order impugned has been pleased to take cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further pleased to direct issuance of summons to the Petitioner. 7. He further submits that the petitioner is innocent, has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. No occurrence has ever taken place as alleged in the FIR. The allegations made in the FIR are evidently baseless and are actuated by mala-fides. At the outset, it is submitted that the informant was the tenant of the Petitioner. 8. No occurrence has ever taken place as alleged in the FIR. The allegations made in the FIR are evidently baseless and are actuated by mala-fides. At the outset, it is submitted that the informant was the tenant of the Petitioner. 8. He further alleges that on 01.06.1966 the lease of the premises was given to "Harjit Singh of M/S Harjit Trading Corporation, Kasmiri Gate New Delhi by the Petitioner. The lease premises consisted of one room being a portion of building bearing Holding no. 28, Circle no. 6 having measurement of 19'6*14' situated on New Dakbungalow Road, Patna. 9. He next submits that the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar inherited this property from his father and is now the owner of the property. The father of the Petitioner died on 30.10.1993. 10. Thereafter he submits that the petitioner namely Ajay Kumar has not executed any lease deed with regard to this property with the Opposite Party No. 2 or anyone else. The Opposite Party No. 2 is no relative of "Harjit Singh i.e. the proprietor of M/s Harjit Trading Corporation, Kasmiri Gate New Delhi, which is the original lessee of the Petitioner. 11. He further submits that the Petitioner namely Ajay Kumar and his family members have been informed that the Opposite Party No. 2 is just an employee who looks after the accounts. Hence the Opposite Party No. 2 has no locus and/or right to claim himself as tenant of the premises. 12. He further submits that petitioner after his retirement from a Nationalised Bank, i.e. on 31 January, 2014 has decided to start his own business of Eating Joints in Patna. Since he had his own premises in Patna which was suitable for business purpose of the petitioner, he informed the staff of the premises in advance in month of April, 2010 about his decision and accordingly requested them to inform the tenant to vacate the premises latest by 31 January 2014. 13. At the outset learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is necessary to state that the Opposite Party No. 2 came to meet the Petitioner in the month of April 2010 and requested that if a fresh lease is not signed between the Petitioner and him then, then now onwards no rent will be paid and the Opposite Party No. 2 will not vacate the premises. This has led to filing of this frivolous and fabricated FIR as a counterblast of the incident mentioned here. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since April, 2010 the petitioner has not received rent for the premises. That the rent was Rs. 15,000 per month in the year 2010 when the father of the petitioner last received the rent. Till 31st March 2010 a lump sum amount towards rent has been paid. The father of the petitioner always has issued receipt for rent paid to him. Hence the allegations in the FIR is false and imaginary. 15. He further submits that when the petitioner called the Opposite Party No. 2 in February 2014, the Opposite Party No. 2 gave the petitioner a partnership deed dated 01.04.1981 showing the Opposite Party No. 2 as tenant of the premises. When the partnership deed was studied by the Petitioner it was observed that it is between Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Bajaj and the Opposite Party No. 2. The Opposite Party No. 2 is said to be a working partner for running the partnership business of automobile products and name of partnership business shall be "Harjit Automobiles. The clause 11 of the partnership deed gave tenancy rights to Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Bajaj. Hence the Opposite Party No. 2 was not a tenant as per this partnership deed. The Opposite Party No. 2 gave another partnership deed dated 19.06.1993, wherein also tenancy rights was with Smt. Sarabjit Kaur Bajaj. Hence the Opposite Party No. 2 was never a tenant and has filed this FIR just to shield himself as a tenant of the premises and to protect his job. 16. He further submits that on the occasion of a function in the family both the sons had come to Patna and the Opposite Party No. 2 has chosen this occasion to lodge the present case in order to put pressure on the petitioner to sign a fresh lease with him. 17. There was a landlord tenant dispute in which the Opposite Party No. 2 was not ready to vacate the premises in capacity of an employee. The Opposite Party No. 2 was never a tenant of the premises. When rent was not paid and fresh lease was not executed between the parties it has led to filing of this FIR which is full of conjectures and surmises and concocted allegations. 18. The Opposite Party No. 2 was never a tenant of the premises. When rent was not paid and fresh lease was not executed between the parties it has led to filing of this FIR which is full of conjectures and surmises and concocted allegations. 18. He further submits that it has come in the course of investigation that all the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The independent witnesses have supported the fact that the petitioner is innocent and since the Opposite Party no.2 has been asked to vacate the premises, and no fresh lease executed between the parties, this FIR has been peacefully handed over the possession of the Petitioner on 06.06.2020 19. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been made scapegoat of oblique motive and ulterior purpose of the Opposite Party No. 2 just to wreak vengeance on the petitioner out of private/personal grudge. The petitioner has been made victim of malicious prosecution. 20. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is a civil dispute which has been given color of criminal proceedings just to harass the petitioner and falsely implicate them. Hence the cognizance order needs to be quashed as it is a civil dispute. 21. Learned APP has submitted that from the reading of the F.I.R., it will appear that this may be a landlord tenant dispute and the offences are not made out. 22. I have considered the submission of the parties. 23. From the reading of the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner is the landlord of the premises of the opposite party no. 2, the entire dispute is basically because of the tenancy and the prosecution of the petitioner is mala-file prosecution. 24. In my opinion, such mala-fide prosecution should not continue as it will cause harassment to the petitioner and other accused persons. 25. In view of the above, the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in General Register No. 2583 of 2014 arising out of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 164 of 2014 whereby and where under the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XIV, Patna is hereby quashed against all the accused persons as the other accused are the sons of the petitioner.