J UDGMENT & O RDER : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2 and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state respondent. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 / 397/ 401 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the FIR dated 06.07.2019 pertaining to Bhangagarh PS Case No. 243/2019 registered under Section 294 / 323/ 511 of IPC. Pertinent that by order dated 31.07.2019 proceedings in connection with the said FIR was stayed until further orders by way of an interim protection. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.07.2019 one Seikh Noor Iman Mukhtar (respondent No. 2) lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bhangagarh Police Station, stating, inter alia, that on last 05.07.2019 at about 5.30 PM when two police personnel came and called him and his manager outside, the petitioner rebuked and threatened them of assaulting and cutting. Upon receipt of the same, the said case was registered. 4. The informant/respondent No. 2 is the elder brother of the petitioner No. 1 and they reside in the adjacent buildings and there has been a long period of boundary dispute going on between them. In fact, in the year 2001 also pursuant to both the parties lodging criminal complaints against each other, the matter was later on compromised and thereafter a compromise deed was executed between them on 06.07.2001. 5. Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that despite the aforesaid settlement having entered between the petitioner and the informant/respondent No. 2, the informant/respondent No. 2 violated the terms of the settlement deed for which the petitioner had informed the jurisdictional police official on 05.07.2019 and had also lodged an FIR on that day itself against the informant/ respondent No. 2, which was registered as Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 242/2019 under Section 420 of IPC. He further submits that the instant FIR dated 06.07.2019 is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 1 on 05.07.2019. He further submits that the petitioner also filed another FIR dated 10.07.2019 against the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 252/2019 under Section 120 (B)/420 IPC. He further submits that the instant FIR dated 06.07.2019 is nothing but a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner No. 1 on 05.07.2019. He further submits that the petitioner also filed another FIR dated 10.07.2019 against the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 252/2019 under Section 120 (B)/420 IPC. He further submits that no criminal case whatsoever is made out in the body of the allegations made in the FIR in question. He further submits that the FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide only with an ulterior motive for racking vengeance on the petitioner in view of their long personal disputes between them. 6. Per contra, Mr. L. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2 in his usual fairness submits that considering that both the parties have filed FIRs against each other and the undisputed fact being their long boundary dispute pending between the two, criminal cases were lodged by both of them against each other appears to be totally civil in nature. He further submits, on instruction, that the informant/respondent No. 2 is ready and willing to abide by the terms of settlement arrived at between them and to live peacefully in his building without causing any disturbance or annoyance to the petitioner pending adjudication of the civil suit in question. 7. Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent also fairly contends that the averments made in the FIR on the face of it does not constitute any criminal offence whatsoever. 8. I have given my prudent consideration to the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also have perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 9. The principle of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. VS. Bhajan Lal and Ors. /b> reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which read as hereunder:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. VS. Bhajan Lal and Ors. /b> reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which read as hereunder:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. The instant case is squarely covered by category 7 of the principles laid down in the said decision by the Apex Court for exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in order to prevent abuse of the process of any court. 11. The instant case is squarely covered by category 7 of the principles laid down in the said decision by the Apex Court for exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in order to prevent abuse of the process of any court. 11. It is undisputed that earlier also the petitioners and the informant/respondent No. 2 have lodged criminal complaints against each other over the same boundary dispute and after settling the same in the police station had withdrawn their respective FIRs. 12. The said settlement arrived on 06.07.2001 before the Officer-in-Charge of Paltan Bazar Police Station reads as under: “To The Officer-in-charge Paltan Bazar Police Station Paltan Bazar, Guwahati. Dt. 6/7/01 Applicant: (1) Sheikh Nur Islam S/o. Lt. Sheikh Nur Mahammad R/o. Jatia, Kahilipara, Guwahati. (2) Sheikh Nur Iman Muktar S/o. Lt. Sheikh Nur Mahammad R/o. Ulubari Bazar, Guwahati. Sir, Respectful submission is that regarding construction of house yesterday on 05.07.2001 as differences occurred between us, we both the parties filed separate FIRs in your police station. Today you and Borbhuyan Sir settled the dispute between us. According to such settlement I will construct I will be able to construct building keeping a gap of 32 inch from the building. We both agree to the same. Yours faithfully SD/- illegible 6/7/2001” 13. It appears that despite the aforesaid settlement, there have been differences between them. The petitioner on 05.07.2019 upon the informant/respondent No. 2 employing some mason and workers to dig the disputed area to install some pillar, informed the jurisdictional police station and accordingly a case was registered under Section 420 of IPC on 05.07.2019. It further appears that after the police had arrived and the knowledge of the instant FIR, the informant/respondent No. 2 lodged the present FIR on 06.07.2019 alleging that the petitioner had rebuked him in many ways. Accordingly a case was registered under Section 294 / 323/ 511 of IPC against the petitioner. 14. Section 294 of IPC talks about obscene acts and songs, which read as under: “ Section 294 - Obscene acts and songs. - Whoever, to the annoyance of others: (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” 15. - Whoever, to the annoyance of others: (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” 15. Further, Section 323 of IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Section 319 of IPC stipulates that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. 16. A plain reading of the averments in the FIR even if taken to be correct, no allegation of the petitioner doing any obscene act and or causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity whatsoever to the informant/respondent No. 2 so as to cause hurt is made out. Hence, no offence whatsoever is made out under Section 294 and 323 of IPC. Likewise, no offence whatsoever is also made out under Section 511 of IPC. 17. In fact, it is clearly evident that the instant criminal proceedings have been manifestly attended by the informant/respondent No. 2 with mala fide and malicious intention only with an ulterior motive for racking vengeance on the petitioner in view of their long pending boundary dispute. Hence, the lodging of the instant FIR is a total abuse of the process of court. 18. That being so, continuation of further criminal proceeding pertaining to the said FIR is not justified and in order to secure the ends of justice, the same warrants to be set aside and quashed. 19. Resultantly, the FIR dated 06.07.2019 pertaining to Bhangagarh PS Case No. 243/2019 registered under Section 294 / 323/ 511 of IPC is hereby set aside and quashed. 20. Interim order dated 29.10.2025 passed earlier in the present proceeding, stands merged with this order. 21. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and disposed of.