ORDER This is a petition under Sec.482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 679 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri. 2. One Krishna Udayar, alleging to be in possession of an extent of 6-54 acres in Survey No.18/2 of Mangalampatti village, gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Harur, Dharmapuri District against the petitioners (accused 1 to 9) alleging that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing theft of tamarind fruits from the trees standing in the above extent of land in his possession and in fact did trespass into the property and actually committed theft of tamarind fruits, besides issuing threats of dire consequences in case they are prevented from removing the tamarind fruits from the trees. The complaint was registered as Cr.No.85 of 1982 for the offences under Sec.147, 148, 447, 506, Part II and 392 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. against the petitioners. 3. After completing the formalities of investigation, a report had been laid by the investigating agency under Sec.173, Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri. 4. The further facts that are necessary may briefly be stated as follows: The extent of 6-54 acres of land in S.No.18/2 originally belonged to S.K.Rama Naidu. One Kalaiselviis stated to have purchased those lands and got into possession of the same. Laterly, she is stated to have leased out the same to one Krishna Udayar and ever since the lease, he was in possession and enjoyment of the lands. It also appears that S.K.Rama Naidu entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners herein respect of these lands, giving rise to the filing of a suit in O.S.No.101 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Krishnagiri, by the petitioners for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It is also stated that Kalaiselvi also filed a suit in O.S.No. 54 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri for declaration and injunction against the petitioners. The suit in O.S.No. 101 of 1981 was decreed on 21.9.1981. The suit in O.S.No.54 of 1982 was dismissed on 18.4.1985. It is also stated that Kalaiselvi also filed a suit in O.S.No. 54 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri for declaration and injunction against the petitioners. The suit in O.S.No. 101 of 1981 was decreed on 21.9.1981. The suit in O.S.No.54 of 1982 was dismissed on 18.4.1985. The petitioners, on the basis of the decree obtained by them in O.S.No. 101 of 1981 would claim that their legal right to possession of the subject matter of dispute must be recognised on and from the date of occurrence namely 27.2.1982. 5. Learned counsel would submit that in view of the fact that the legal right to possession of the subject-matter of dispute had been recognised and a decree in a fact had been granted by a competent civil Court in favour of the petitioners it is futile to contend that they had committed the offences of criminal trespass and theft of tamarind fruits, which form the subject matter of dispute and in this view of the matter, the criminal case pending against them has to be quashed. The argument of the learned counsel, if delved deep further, it will emerge, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that such a contention is devoid of any substance. 6. Learned counsel, while making submission of his arguments of this apsect of the matter, forgets the real distinction between the legal right to possession and actual possession. The offences of criminal trespass and theft are legal offences committed against the person in actual possession of the properties, by entertaining the requisite mens rea adumberated in the particular provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The offences are not committed against the person having the legal right to possession. The question to be decided for the maintainability of the complaint before the Court below is, as to who was in actual possession on the date of occurrence, namely, 27.2.1982, when the so called offences, as stated in the charge sheet, are alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. It is not at all the case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into with the original owner S.K.Rama Naidu, they actually got into possession of the properties. It is not at all the case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into with the original owner S.K.Rama Naidu, they actually got into possession of the properties. On the other hand, the consistent case of the complainant Krishna Udayar appears to be that as a lessee of the properties under Kalaiselvi, who is stated to have purchased the same from the original owner, he was in possession of the properties. The allegation in the complaint is also to that effect. The investigating agency also recorded Sec.161, Criminal Procedure Code statements of witnesses concerning the actual possession of the subject matter of dispute and finally, finding possession in favour of Krishna Udayar, the complainant, laid the report under Sec.173, Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 447, 506, Part II and 392 read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code appear to have been committed by the petitioners. Nothing has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the materials available on record in the shape of Sec.161, Criminal Procedure Code statements do not at all point out that the petitioners are having a hand in the commission of the offences as stated in the charge-sheet in the sense of there being total lack of evidence on record. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no substance in this petition. This petition deserves to be dismissed and therefore, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.