Jurisdictional issues and the applicability of specific legal provisions must be carefully considered before initiating criminal proceedings.

ORDER

K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rdrespondent in registering a case in Crime No. 495 of 2015 against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 447 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 basing upon the complaint of the 4th respondent without having authority or jurisdiction as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the FIR in Crime No.495 of 2015 on the file of SHO, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam-3rd respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government leader for Home for the respondents.

3. This Court vide order dated 01.09.2015 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim stay as prayed for.

4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the 4th respondent herein seeking recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction as he acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 31.07.2008. but 4th respondent contended that they have acquired the land on surrender from the petitioner's late maternal grandfather and they have also paid the compensation to his late maternal grandfather. It is pertinent to submit here that so far they have come with any proof showing that the compensation was paid to the petitioner's late maternal grandfather, but the 4th respondent in collusion with revenue department people, created certain fake documents stating that they have already paid the compensation for the subject land which is now in dispute. He submitted that the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has assessed the property for property tax in the name of petitioner's mother and to that effect tax passbook was also issued in her favour and electricity connection was also given to the property and as such, it reveals that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Learned counsel mainly contended that the 4th respondent with the help of the 3rdrespondent evicted the petitioner forcibly from the disputed property on 16.12.2009 and as such, he filed the Suit along with another in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for consideration. During pendency of civil suit, now the 4th respondent with a malafide intention lodged present complaint with a view to cause loss to the petitioner under the guise of the present criminal case with all false and concocted averments. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent without having any authority or power registered the case against the petitioner basing upon the complaint given by the 4th respondent by duly serving a notice on 17.08.2015 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 22.08.2015. Even the 3rd respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., which is evident from the notice. As per Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, a notice shall be served on him within 15 days from the date of registration of the crime, but the 3rd respondent served the notice nearly after lapse of one and half month from the date of registration of the crime, which is highly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that under Sections 8 and 12 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short 'the Act'), the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint given by the 4threspondent and the competent Court is the Land Grabbing Court established under the Special Act. As such, the complaint in the above crime is liable to be quashed in limini as it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents while denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, contended that, during the course of investigation the complainant and two witnesses have be