Order This is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the accused in the case for quashing the criminal case in C.C.No.421 of 1983, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram. 2. The respondent has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner before the police on 21.4.1983 alleging that the latter trespassed and damaged a portion of the temple. The police investigated and referred the case on the ground that there was no temple at all in the premises and that the complaint was contrary to facts. This case was referred on 23.4.1983 and the petitioner is said to have preferred the present complaint about two months later. Further, 21 hearings have already taken place from November, 1983 onwards and no progress has been made. At about the same time, the respondent/complainant filed a civil suit in O.S.No.351 of 1983, on the file of the District Munsif of Padmanabhapuram, for injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the alleged temple and the land appurtenant to it. The Trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal in A.S.No.48 of 1984 the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, and the suit was dismissed on 27.8.84. These facts are not in dispute. 3. The learned Counsel for the accused/ petitioners contended that this is a clear abuse of process of law and that it is nothing but harassment. Firstly, it was pointed out that there was long in laying the private complaint which casts reflection on his case. Secondly, the Civil Court (Appellate Court) has found title in favour of the accused and therefore, a civil dispute is being converted into a criminal action for an ulterior purpose. Thirdly, the case went on for 21 hearings and yet the complaint did not let in evidence and this has caused serious prejudice to the accused. On these grounds, the petitioners pray that the proceedings in C.C.No.421 of 1983 should be quashed since it is nothing but an abuse of process and harassment. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides, and I am satisfied that there is lot of force in the contention of the petitioners-accused. It is not as if the accused have come forward with this petition for quashing as soon as the complaint was filed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides, and I am satisfied that there is lot of force in the contention of the petitioners-accused. It is not as if the accused have come forward with this petition for quashing as soon as the complaint was filed. They have undergone the ordeal of attending 21 adjournments in a petty case like this. This certainly amounts to harassment. Further, whether there is a temple as contended by the plaintiff is hotly in dispute and the Appellate Civil Court (Sub Court) has found that the plaintiff has no title to the property, much less possession. In this background of the civil proceedings, no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting the complaint, as it is bound to fail ultimately, since the very title and possession of the complainant have been negatived by the Appellate Court. Petitioners rely upon the ruling reported in M.N.Subramanian v. S.Pasupathy M.N.Subramanian v. S.Pasupathy (1981) L.W. (Crl.) 251, and contends that this is a fit case for quashing. I am inclined to agree with the petitioners having regard to the facts of the case. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the prosecution of C.C.No.421 of 1983 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, is quashed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.