JUDGMENT : SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J. 1. The instant CRR has been preferred to quash a criminal proceedings being GR Case No. 114 of 2021 pending before the Learned CJM at Jalpaiguri arising out of Kotowali PS Case No. 11 of 2021 dated 8th January 2021. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the private OP No. 2 has lodged a written complaint with the Inspector-in charge of Kotowali Police Station at Jalpaiguri on 17.01.2021 contending inter-alia that the OP No. 2 is the representation of a private Limited Company and undertook a construction over a piece of land. The present petitioners were trying to disturb the construction work of the company accordingly they received an order of Learned SDEM so that the present petitioner may not disturb the construction work. During the existence of such order of Learned SDEM, it has been alleged that on 07.01.2021, the present petitioners with the help of some outsider forcefully tried to construct some bamboo structure and also used filthy languages to the company officials and threatened to them with the dier consequences. 3. On the basis of such complaint police has started Kotowali Police Case No. 11 of 2021 dated 08.01.2021 u/s 447/188/506/34 of IPC against the present petitioners and started investigation. After completion of investigation Police has submitted charge-sheet against all the petitioners u/s 447/188/506/34 of IPC vide charge-sheet No. 468 of 2021 dated 13.09.2021. Being aggrieved by such proceeding as well as the investigation, the instant criminal revision has been preferred. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submit that the instant proceeding is the outcome of earlier proceeding initiated by the present petitioner u/s 107 Cr.P.C. The actual dispute is civil in nature and the present OP No. 2 in collusion with other OP No. 3 and 4 has initiated the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners. He further submits the present petitioners are in possession over the land in question with their family since long. The present OP No. 2 preferred a petition before the Learned Executive Magistrate Jalpaiguri u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. against the present petitioners. 5. The Learned Executive Magistrate had passed an Ex-Parte order directing the present petitioners to appear and file show cause, also directed the IC Kotowali PS that the construction over the land as mentioned in the petition which is going on may not hamper anywhere. 5. The Learned Executive Magistrate had passed an Ex-Parte order directing the present petitioners to appear and file show cause, also directed the IC Kotowali PS that the construction over the land as mentioned in the petition which is going on may not hamper anywhere. IC was further directed to submit a report and to maintain peace and tranquillity over the area. The said order was further extended without considering the objections; thus the present petitioners filed a CRR before this court against the said orders of SDEM. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court has set aside the order passed by the Learned SDEM. 6. He further argued that the present petitioners are in possession over the said land, so the ingredients of offence u/s 447 IPC is not maintainable. He further argued that the FIR u/s 188 Cr.P.C is barred u/s 195 (2) Cr.P.C. He again submitted charge-sheet by the police is perfunctory. There is no ingredients u/s 506 of IPC to substantiate the allegation in the FIR. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further argued that FIR as well as the charge-sheet is arbitrary and mechanical and Learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence without applying his mind on the basis of the perfunctory charge-sheet. He further argued that it is crystal clear that the present petitioners are in possession of the land so the entire charge-sheet as well as the FIR is liable to be quashed. He argued that the private opposite party no. 2 in collision with OP- 3 and OP- 4 tried to cloak a civil dispute in a colour of criminal proceeding. He prayed for quashing. 8. In support of his contention he cited two decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court: 1. Mithilesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2021 2. Md. Ali and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023 The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: 43. On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, this Court has also observed: “8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, this Court has also observed: “8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 9. In Md. Mahmood Ali and Others (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: 13. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held: 13(6) In R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri. L.J. 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (AIR p. 869, Para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction. (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 13(7) In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, o?, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death......” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Learned Advocate for the Opposite Party submits that the scope of quashing by the High Court in a case where the charge-sheet has been submitted is very limited. In this case it would be appeared that the company was engaged in some construction work where the present petitioners tried to create disturbances. He further argued that from the fact of the petition itself it would appear that there was an order of Learned SDEM concerned over the plots in question. It is disputed in this case that who is in possession of relevant plot of land; when the factual possession is disputed, the High Court should not interfered in the charge-sheet in a proceeding of quashing u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure. He further submits that the allegation made in the FIR has sufficiently constituted the prima facie offence against the present petitioners. He further submits that the allegation made in the FIR has sufficiently constituted the prima facie offence against the present petitioners. Thus, the police authority has submitted the charge-sheet, at this juncture the High Court is not permitted to hold the mini trial. He further argued that the present petitioners are only tried to delay the proceeding. He prayed for dismissal of the Instant CRR. 11. In support of his contention the Learned Advocate for the opposite party has cited some decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as follows: 1. Rajiv Kourav vs. Baisahab, AIR 2020 SC 909 2. Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 2019 SC 847 3. Md. Alauddin Khan vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2019 SC 1910 4. CBI vs. Arvind Khanna, AIR 2020 SC 3448 12. In Rajiv Kaurav (Supra) the Hon’ble Court has held that: It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima-facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding. 13. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar the Hon’ble Apex Court has held: 5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. 14. In Md. Alauddin Khan (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: 17. In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. That stage is yet to come in this case. 15. In CBI vs. Arbind Khanna (Supra) has held that: 19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant-C.B.I. and the defence put-forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. 16. Heard the Learned Advocates. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. 16. Heard the Learned Advocates. Perused the observations of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the guidelines thereon regarding the disposal of quashing application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. In this particular case the petitioners alleged that the instant criminal proceeding was filed maliciously to cloak civil disputes between the parties. Admittedly an order of Executive Magistrate concerned was existing over the disputed land in question. The petitioner alleged that they were in possession over the said plot of land while, the OP No. 2 i.e. the representative of a Private Limited Company disclose before the Learned Executive Magistrate that one construction of the company was going on I find no civil case is pending at present between the parties. The allegation made in the FIR u/s 447 and 506 of IPC was investigated by the police and police after investigation, has submitted charge-sheet. The charge-sheet contained the materials including the statements of available witnesses. The Learned Magistrate after perusing the charge sheet had taken cognizance of the offence. 18. It is the submission of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that the ingredients of offence u/s 447/506 has not made out. The argument as advanced by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner has got no reliance, rather the statement of available witnesses prima facie made out the case against the present petitioner. The materials are not irrelevant to call for inherent power of this court. 19. By virtue of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others, the ingredients are specified wherein the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding. I find nothing in the instant criminal revision which can justify the ingredients as enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajanlal. Moreover the possession of parties over the land in question is a disputed fact. I find nothing in the instant criminal revision which can justify the ingredients as enumerated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch. Bhajanlal. Moreover the possession of parties over the land in question is a disputed fact. So, by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CBI vs. Arbind Khanna (Supra), the said fact cannot be entertained or evaluated by this High Court at the stage of quashing u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. The evidentiary value of the materials collected by the IO during the course of investigation cannot be evaluated at the stage, if the same be exercised by this court at the stage of quashing that would tantamount to be a mini trial which is not at all permissible. Considering the same I find no justification to entertain the instant criminal revision. 20. Accordingly the criminal revision be dismissed as devoid of merit. 21. CRR is disposed of. The connected applications, if pending, are also disposed of. 22. Any order of stay passed by this court during the instant CRR is also vacated. 23. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of the judgment be received from the concerned Dept. on usual terms and conditions.