IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes and that the abuse of process of the court can warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. Criminal Petition No.7731 of 2014 is filed by the Petitioners/A.1 and A.2, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") praying to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.314 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, for the offences under Ss. 447 and 427 IPC.

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.314 of 2014 and raising common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common Order.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court in C.C.No.314 of 2014.

4. A private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant on the file of Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur against A.1 to A.4. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the de facto complainant and one of the witnesses, namely, G.V.Subrahmanyam and eventually having found prima facie case against all the accused regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offence, took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 447 and 427 IPC and issued process of summons to A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.314 of 2014. The said case is now pending trial before the trial Court. Challenging the said cognizance, the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 filed the above-referred Criminal Petitions seeking to quash the proceedings against them arising out of C.C.No.314 of 2014.

5. The marshaling of facts, upon perusal of the complaint and other material available on record, is that thirty years ago, the de facto complainant took lease of the land of an extent of Ac.5.09 cents in D.Nos.190/1A, 109/1B and 403 of Budampadu Village from Jameela Begum (Mymunnisa Begum), who is the owner of the property. Thereafter, the said property came into the hands of A.1. The de facto complainant and A.1 entered into an agreement of lease on 29/4/2009. A.1 tried to forcibly evict the de facto complainant from the leased land which was in his possession and protesting the same, the de facto complainant filed A.T.C.No.4 of 2013 before the Tenancy Special officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and got a temporary ad-interim injunction. Without his knowledge and consent, A.1 sold Ac.3.09 cents covered in D.Nos.190/1A, 190/1B to one T.Vaishnavi Reddy by violating the above said Court Orders. On 14/2/2014, A.1 and his clerk came to the said land and threatened the de facto complainant to vacate the premises and on 16/2/2014 at 6.00 a.m., all the accused came to the fields and damaged the entire crop which was raised in Ac.2.00 cents of land. Immediately, the de facto complainant rushed to Nallapadu Police Station and gave a report. The Police did not take any action. Then, the de facto complainant approached the superior Police Officials and they also did not respond. As such, the present complaint is filed.

6. Sri O.Manohara Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 in both the criminal petitions and submitted that A.1 sold Ac.3.09 cents of land to the said T.Vaishnavi Reddy. A.1 is the owner of the rest of the land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents. On 29/4/2009 A.1 and the de facto complainant entered into an agreement of lease in terms and conditions agreed upon lease for 5 years through which the de facto complainant has become cultivating tenant of the said land. He would further submit that when A.1 requested the de facto complainant to vacate the said land for his own use, the de facto complainant filed I.A.1440 of 2013 in ATC 4/2013 before the Tenancy Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, seeking an ad-interim injunction against A.1 and one Thummuru Vyshanavi Reddy and the same was dismissed on 20/10/2014. Against the said Order, an appeal was preferred by the de facto complainant in A.T.A.No.4 of 2014 on the file of Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur and the said appeal was allowe