IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

2. Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating that he is resident of Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal, purchased Ac-0.19 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.242/1 in Dwarapudi Village from his villager Puli Radha, W/o Appanna and got registered the same in the name of his daughter i.e. Boddula Uma Barathi on 10.06.2014, since then the daughter of de-facto complainant is enjoying the said land, and on the southern side of the said land, the accused land is situated. LW4, who is carrying out the farming activities to the said land, on 30.05.2016 came to know that the accused got ploughed his land along with de-facto complainant’s daughter land with a tractor and demolished southern land bund of de-facto complainant’s daughter and occupied it. On that, LW4 rushed to the spot, noticed the same, and questioned the accused about his acts, for which the accused replied that the land does not belong to the daughter of the de-facto complainant and the same is belongs to his relatives and further threatened that if he raise the issue anywhere else, he will lodge a report against the complainant and LW4, as if they abused him by touching his caste name. On that, the de-facto complainant along with LW5 and one Thaddi Srinivasa Rao visited the spot, noticed the same and presented the report to the police. Basing on the report given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Cr.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram.

3. The present petition is filed to quash the said C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the ground that the de-facto complainant is highly influenced person both politically and financially and he is Ex-Sarpanch of Dwarapudi Village and is close relative of Ex-Minister of Andhra Pradesh. The de-facto complainant is doing several businesses and with an evil intention to grab the petitioner’s land, which is ancestral property, the de-facto complainant is harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally. It is further submitted that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac-0.39 cents in S.No.242/1. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds also stand in the name of petitioner. There are several criminal cases pending against the de-facto complainant. The petitioner is paying cists to the Government for the land possessed by him. The de-facto complainant by influencing the police officials, wilfully lodged a false case against the petitioner. It is further stated that when the de-facto complainant tried to trespass into the subject property, the petitioner have also preferred a civil suit vide O.S.No.354 of 2016 before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and in that suit temporary injunction was granted in favour of petitioner. Even though temporary injunction was granted, the de-facto complainant tried to interfere with the subject property, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police, but no action was taken. It is further stated that the entire case facts clearly shows that the petitioner is an absolute owner of the land and in order to harass the petitioner herein the de-facto complainant lodged a false case. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

4. None appeared for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant though notice was served.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petit