1. This Criminal Petition is directed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.800 of 2008 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class at Sangareddy, Medak District.

2. The facts of the case are:

Originally, the case property admeasuring 2 Acres situated in Sy.No.270/EE of Bhanur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district belonged to one Veerayya, Lakshmaiah and Shivayya and they executed General Power of Attorney (hereinafter, the G.P.A) in favour of one Tirupathi Reddy who converted the property into plots and also sold the plots, whereas the petitioners herein are the purchasers of some of the plots. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed a private complaint on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Medak District, under Sections 427, 447, 448, 323 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the G.P.A. and the petitioners on the ground that they trespassed into the property. Consequently, the matter was referred to the concerned police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Ultimately, the police filed final report treating the case as baseless and accordingly, the matter was closed.

3. Later, a protest petition was filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. against Tirupathi Reddy i.e., the G.P.A. holder, and the petitioners asserting that the police having been influenced by them failed to conduct proper enquiry and further on the ground that corresponding civil suit was filed before a civil court, filed the final report.

4. Therefore, the point that arises for consideration is whether the calendar case is maintainable and liable to be quashed or not.

5. Significantly the private complaint was originally filed before the said Magistrate Court and was referred to the police concerned under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report and, consequently, the final report was filed and subsequently, the protest petition was filed.

6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court below issued summons to the petitioners under Section 61 of Cr.P.C. to answer the charges, which is not warranted and in view of the facts of the case including the final report, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate Court is not tenable.

7. Much emphasis is to be given to the fact that the complaint was filed under Sections 427, 447, 448, 323, 506 (ii) R/w 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners and the G.P.A. on the ground that the complainant is the absolute owner of the property and without any right the petitioners and the G.P.A. trespassed into the property and involved in the said offences which of course is subject to proof basing upon the relevant material. Certainly, when such allegations are made by the complainant it is for him to place satisfactory evidence including that with regards to his ownership of the property to punish the petitioners and the G.P.A. accordingly. It is also the duty of the police concerned to carry out proper investigation to find out the genuineness of the allegations and to take necessary measures for prosecuting the petitioners and the G.P.A. When once it is found that there is prima-facie material to proceed against them for the alleged offences, the involvement of civil liability will not preclude them from taking necessary action for the criminal liability. In other words, when there is material to prosecute a person or persons under Criminal Justice System, there is no other go except to initiate prosecution against him or them.

8. Omission on the part of police and judiciary to take cognizance of a case even though there is material prima-facie to proceed with under the concept of Criminal administration of justice amounts to non-discharging of their legitimate duties. Having been assigned with particular responsibilities or duties, they should consciously discharge their duties failing which the very purpose of assigning them those duties stands defeated. If that attitude is adop