IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

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.259 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

2. Petitioners herein are the accused. Respondent No.4 is the complainant. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint on 11.03.2018 stating that he is the resident of Rangampeta Village and eking out his livelihood by attending agriculture labour works. His wife Y. Kumari has got house bearing D.No.2-94/1 in Ac.0.13 cents of land. Thereafter, some disputes arose between complainant’s family and the family of his brother Y.Subba Rao, petitioner No.1 herein, complainant filed a civil case in Peddapuram about 9 years back and the said civil case is pending in the Court. Further, the complainant alleged in the complaint that he constructed a thatched house and living there. While things stood thus, on 11.03.2018 petitioners trespassed into complainant’s land and removed the shed, when the complainant questioned them, the petitioners said that the Court passed order in their favour and beat the complainant with hands. Thereafter, when Y. Kumari came to the scene of offence and tried to pacify the issue, the petitioners beat her with hands and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.53 of 2018 on the file of Rangampeta Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram.

3. The present petition is filed to quash the said C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the ground that the wife of the complainant filed O.S.No.295 of 2010 against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for permanent injunction and for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages, but the same was dismissed on 14.02.2018. After dismissal of the said suit, complainant filed the present complaint with false allegations. Further, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein filed suit O.S.No.53 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Peddapuram against the complainant and his wife for declaration and for permanent injunction, wherein the Court directed both the parties to maintain Status quo. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature and would not constitute the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C, requested to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.259 of 2018.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that on 11.03.2018 the petitioners trespassed into the land of complainant, pushed him and beat him with hands, and when the wife of complainant interfered, the petitioners beat her with hands and threatened with dire consequences. Immediately, after the incident, complainant went to the police and lodged a report against the petitioners. The allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint would constitute offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows :

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

7. The present petition has been f