8.The entire allegations in the FIRs, when taken on its face value, clearly indicate that there is genuine civil dispute between the parties over a small extent of land, i.e., about 45 sq.ft. It is alleged that the accused has made criminal intimidation over phone. It is to be noted that the entire allegations made in the FIR, when taken on face value, would not constitute any offence of criminal intimidation. Mere alleged threat over phone cannot be construed to mean that the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC has been made out. Similarly, when there is genuine civil dispute pending between the parties over an extent of land, when the parties show their apprehension to prevent encroachment or putting up of construction over the disputed extent of land, such act can never be construed as wrongful restraint or trespass of property. It is also contended that the accused had abused the de facto complainant. Except raising such a contention, there is no mention in the FIR as to the nature of abusing words, made by the accused. Except general allegations, there are no other specific materials as against the petitioner to make out any offence as against him. It is very clear that both the FIRs are a result of civil dispute. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, continuance of prosecution as against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law, as the parties are also before the Civil Court in respect of the disputed land. It is stated that the de facto complainant has also filed a suit to assail the document in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is for the de facto complainant to work out his remedy before the Civil Court in the pending suits, and not by way of setting the criminal machinery in motion.
