JUDGMENT : Raj Beer Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ishan Deo Giri & Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of the entire proceedings, including summoning order dated 30.01.2024, of Complaint Case No.1070/504 of 2023 (Veer Pal Singh Saini Vs. Manoj Tirodkar and others), under Sections 441, 447, 406, 420, 120B IPC, Post- Newari, Tehsil Modi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad U.P., pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Ghaziabad. 3. It has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. As per version of complainant, the applicants' company has installed tower at the land of opposite party no.2/complainant for a period of 10 years and in that connection agreement was made between the parties. It was further stated that the said company has not been made party in the impugned complaint and that no statutory notice has been issued to applicants for offence under Section 447 IPC. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that merely because said agreement could not be extended further or that company has not removed its towers from land of complainant, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. There is no evidence of entrustment to the applicants. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted Learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws:- (i) GHCL Vs. India Infoline Ltd. 2013 4 SCC 505 (ii) S.K. Alag Vs. State of UP and Others (2008) 5 SCC 662 (iii) Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rarne (2015) 12 SCC 781 (iv) Sushil Seth and Anothers Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others (2020) 3 SCC 240 (v) Roop Mani Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Another ( Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3336 of 2014 ) (vi) Dayle De'Souza Vs. Governemnt of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and Another [SLP (CRL.) No.3913 of 2020] (vii) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 4. State of U.P. and Another ( Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3336 of 2014 ) (vi) Dayle De'Souza Vs. Governemnt of India Through Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) and Another [SLP (CRL.) No.3913 of 2020] (vii) Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 661 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the application and submitted that G.T.L. Company has installed towers on the land of complainant in the year 2008 for a period of 10 years but the said agreement has not been extended further and neither any rent is being paid to the complainant nor the towers/equipments of the company are being removed from the land of complainant. Learned counsel has referred provisions of Section 441 IPC and submitted that a prima-facie case under Section 447 IPC is made out. It was submitted that applicants are office bearers, including chairman, of the company and thus, there was no necessity to arraign the company as accused. Referring to case of Lalit Chaturvedi and Others Vs. State of UP and Another 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171 , it was submitted that a prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. 5. Matter requires consideration. 6. Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. 7. Put up this case on 01.04.2025, as fresh. 8. It is directed that till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in aforesaid case.