O R D E R This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.20 of 2003 under Sections 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code on the file of Atmakur Police Station on the complaint filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool District, the third respondent herein. 2. Normally, this Court does not interfere with the investigation and scuttle down the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code except when the criminal proceedings initiated is vexatious and manifestly attended with a mala fide act or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused or where the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused; and where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 3. The present case is an instance where a frustrated Land Acquisition Officer having met her waterloo in the hierarchy of Civil Courts, has further enmeshed the claimant, whose land was acquired, in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of process of law. It is the bounden duty of the Court to quash such proceedings and prevent abuse of process to give finality to the litigation. The facts when stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous. 4. The petitioner-accused is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.9.64 cents in Sy.No.207/2 of Indireswaram village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. The said land was proposed to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of a net tank across Padmaraju Vagu near Indireswaram village and accordingly issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 8.7.1989 proposing to acquire the said land along with other lands. The said land was proposed to be acquired by the Government for the purpose of formation of a net tank across Padmaraju Vagu near Indireswaram village and accordingly issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) on 8.7.1989 proposing to acquire the said land along with other lands. The petitioner opposed for the said acquisition and made his claim for awarding compensation both for the land and for the 26,992 Eucalyptus trees standing on the said land. The Land Acquisition Officer, who found that there were 26,992 Eucalyptus trees, passed an award on 7.4.1991 awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- per acre for the land and a total compensation of Rs.4,45,380/- for the said 26,992 trees. The petitioner received the compensation amount under protest and sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court and it was numbered as O.P.No.882 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Atmakur (hereinafter called as ‘the reference Court’). Before the reference Court, the petitioner sought for compensation of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre, which works out to Rs.2,89,200/- for Ac.9.64 cents and compensation of Rs.24,29,340/- towards the trees. Thus, the petitioner claimed total compensation of Rs.27,18,540/- along with statutory benefits. However, the reference Court confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land, but so far as the trees are concerned, it fixed the value at Rs.122.60 ps. per each tree on an average basis for 26,992 Eucalyptus trees. Aggrieved by that, the Land Acquisition Officer approached this Court by filing an appeal in A.S.No.735 of 1997, in which the petitioner also filed cross-objections. A Division Bench of this Court, by its Judgment dated 25.9.1998 dismissed both the appeal as well as the cross-objections confirming the order passed by the reference Court. The Land Acquisition Officer was unsuccessful in obtaining a Special Leave from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereupon, the petitioner initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.329 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur for recovery of total amount of Rs.68,59,018/- and sought for attachment and sale of the office of the third respondent and also other properties of the Government. 5. Thereupon, the petitioner initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.329 of 2002 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur for recovery of total amount of Rs.68,59,018/- and sought for attachment and sale of the office of the third respondent and also other properties of the Government. 5. At that stage, the third respondent filed the present complaint before the P.S. Atmakur inter alia alleging that the petitioner after receipt of the compensation of Rs.10,60,194/awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, manipulated Form C.C. with the help of officials and wrote the word “Asammathitho” in Telugu in it and got his reference filed in the Civil Court for adjudication of land compensation. Though the petitioner stated that the Eucalyptus saplings were obtained from the nursery of Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited to plant in the fields, but on enquiry, the officers of the said mill informed that they never supplied saplings of Eucalyptus to ryots of Indireswaram village and they never maintained any nursery to supply saplings to the ryots. Hence, it was alleged that there were no Eucalyptus trees on the acquired land of the petitioner and it was only presumptions since a few number of plants were available which could not be measured and the Divisional Forest Officer stated that all such cases he had taken the growth appearing was above the water level. The Revenue Divisional Officer, in his letter addressed to the District Collector, dated 18.7.1990 stated that he had inspected the subject-land on 31.5.1990 along with Mandal Revenue Officer and Deputy Surveyor and mentioned that in some lands trees have been submerged at the tender age itself and dried up, and wherever the trees alive the Divisional Forest Officer had furnished the estimated value of trees and the same was adopted, which correlated the statement of the petitioner. But, as the report of the Divisional Forest Officer was of the year 1990 and as the possession of the land was taken over in the year 1986-87, the trees might have been very very tender age. Therefore, the petitioner and others played fraud and caused a loss of crores of rupees to the Government. 6. On the basis of the above complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2003 under Sections 468 and 420 of I.P.C. The said crime is now sought to be quashed in this petition. 7. Therefore, the petitioner and others played fraud and caused a loss of crores of rupees to the Government. 6. On the basis of the above complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.20 of 2003 under Sections 468 and 420 of I.P.C. The said crime is now sought to be quashed in this petition. 7. Sri E. Ayyapu Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that a reading of the entire complaint does make out any case attracting cheating under Section 415 or 420 of I.P.C. The enhancement of compensation obtained by the petitioner from the reference Court is a lawful act and it does not attract the offence of cheating or forgery. Even if the reference is not validly made and there is any tampering of the record as alleged, it is for the reference Court to refer the matter to the police and can file a complaint in view of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., but the police cannot register and investigate into the crime on the complaint made by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. Some of the ryots filed W.P.Nos.6497 and 20026 of 2001 against the Government and the third respondent and this Court by Judgment dated 20.11.2001 directed the third respondent to pass an award within three months and as the said direction was not complied with, a contempt case was filed against the third respondent in C.C.No.693 of 2002. Subsequent to the receipt of notice issued by this Court in the said contempt case, the present complaint was filed with a mala fide intention to wreck vengeance against the petitioner and others. For the said proposition, the learned counsel placed reliance on ANIL MAHAJAN V. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.(1) and UMA SHANKAR GOPALIKA V. STATE OF BIHAR(2). 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the allegations made in the complaint discloses an offence, for which the police is duty bound to investigate into and file a charge sheet and therefore, the same cannot be scuttled down at the initial stage. 9. The main allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner got the reference fraudulently by manipulating C.C. Form with the help of the officials by writing a word ‘Asammathitho’ in Telugu, but nowhere it is stated that the same alone is the basis for referring the matter to the civil Court. 9. The main allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner got the reference fraudulently by manipulating C.C. Form with the help of the officials by writing a word ‘Asammathitho’ in Telugu, but nowhere it is stated that the same alone is the basis for referring the matter to the civil Court. Inasmuch as the petitioner had filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act that itself will manifest his intention and therefore, the protest against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation, as held by the Apex Court in AJIT SINGH V. STATE OF PANJAB(3) and also a Full Bench of this Court in DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA V. P.NAGABHUSHANA RAO(4) , to which I was a member. In that view of the matter, even if the allegation made in the complaint taken to be true that the petitioner obtained the reference by manipulating C.C. Form by writing a word ‘Asammathitho’ (protest) in Telugu, it cannot be said that the reference was obtained fraudulently. Further, the fulfilment of the conditions, particularly the one regarding limitation, are the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector under Sec. 18 to make the reference exists. The making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to S.18 (2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector. The court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by the Collector under S.18 complies with the conditions laid down therein so as to give the court jurisdiction to hear the reference. In view of the same, it is to be seen that in the reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has not raised any objection that the application filed for reference was barred by limitation. Since the said objection had not been taken and not invited any decision from the reference Court, it is deemed that the Land Acquisition Officer waived the right about the illegality, if any, for reference of the matter to the Civil Court. Further, even at the appellate stage also, such an objection has not been raised. Since the said objection had not been taken and not invited any decision from the reference Court, it is deemed that the Land Acquisition Officer waived the right about the illegality, if any, for reference of the matter to the Civil Court. Further, even at the appellate stage also, such an objection has not been raised. In view of the same, prima facie, the main allegation made in the complaint that by manipulating the C.C. form, with the help of the officials by writing the word ‘Asammathitho’ the petitioner by filing the application under Section 18 of the Act got the matter referred to the reference Court, does not constitute any offence much less the offence of cheating or forgery. 10. The next allegation in the complaint is that there were no Eucalyptus trees on the land as on the date of acquisition of the land. It was alleged in the complaint that the then Revenue Divisional Officer in his P.V. Statement addressed to the Collector, vide letter RCA No.1650/87, dated 18.7.1990 stated that when he inspected the land on 31.5.1990 along with Mandal Revenue Officer and Deputy Surveyor it was noticed that in some lands trees were submerged at the tender age and they dried up and the said report was also accepted by the Collector. If that be the case, it is nowhere alleged in the complaint that the petitioner played fraud in connivance with the Land Acquisition Officer in sending the P.V. Statement to the Collector. Further, the complaint is also silent as to the petitioner tendering any evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer about his obtaining the Eucalyptus trees from Sree Rayalaseema Paper Mills Limited. 11. In the absence of any averment about the deceit, cheating and fraudulent intention of the accused at the time of passing the award, it cannot be inferred that the accused had the intention to deceive the complainant to pay the compensation for non-existing trees. From the record it is to be seen that the Land Acquisition Officer found 26,992 trees in the land and granted an amount of Rs.4,45,380/- for the said trees and the reference Court in O.P.No.882 of 1992 enhanced the said amount by dividing the trees under three categories and the findings of the reference Court were also affirmed by this Court in A.S.No.735 of 1997. If the said compensation is obtained fraudulently, nothing prevented the Land Acquisition Officer in bringing it to the notice of the Court. 12. Be that as it may, in the context of main allegation in the complaint that the petitioner by tampering the C.C. Form, got filed the reference application in O.P.No.882 of 1992, it is appropriate to refer Section 195 of code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus: “195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - (1) No Court shall take cognizance - (a)(i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2)xxxxxxxxxx” In view of the same, even if there is any tampering of the evidence as alleged, the complaint should be at the instance of the reference Court, but not by the third respondent. Therefore, the allegations made in the First Information Report, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. Therefore, the allegations made in the First Information Report, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. Further, it is noticed that subsequent to the filing of the contempt case against the third respondent in C.C.No.693 of 2002 for due implementation of the Judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.6497 and 20026 of 2001, dated 20.11.2001, which were filed by some other ryots, the present complaint is filed by the third respondent. Therefore, it appears that the impugned criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner due to grudge in the background of the Land Acquisition Proceedings. As indicated above, this case absolutely falls under the guidelines 1 and 7 framed by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. CH. BHAJAN LAL (5). Therefore, setting criminal law into motion by lodging the complainant by the third respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 13. For all the reasons stated above, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the complaint in Crime No.20 of 2003 on the file of Atmakur Police Station, Kurnool District is hereby quashed. --X—