JUDGMENT This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.395 of 2008 relating to crime No.86 of 2006, dated 06.06.2006 of Station House Officer, Proddatur Police Station, Kadapa District. The accused 1 and 3 are the petitioners. The facts leading to filing of the criminal petition to quash the above mentioned proceedings may be stated as follows: The second respondent claims to be the tenant of shop bearing door No.4/499 situated at Shivapuram street, Proddatur belonging to Sri Agastheeswara Swamy Temple, Sivalayam Street, Proddatur. There was a dispute regarding the arrears of rent between the second respondent and the authorities of the temple and it was pending as OS No.76 of 2001 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur. Subsequently, an order was passed directing the second respondent to vacate the schedule mentioned shop within 15 days of receipt of the order. The said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments on 01.04.2006 in O.A.No.32 of 2002. Thereafter, the second respondent filed O.S.No.578 of 2006 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the accused (petitioners) and in the said suit in I.A.No.886 of 2006 he had obtained orders of status quo on 05.05.2006. After passing of the said order, according to the second respondent, the accused 1 to 3 high handedly entered into the shop on 12.05.2006 at about 11 a.m. and started throwing away the articles from the shop, caused damage to the property in the shop. In respect of the said incident, it is said that the second respondent filed a complaint in the court of the I Additional J.F.C.M., Proddatur and the learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the Station House Officer, Proddatur for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police after conducting investigation into the matter submitted a report referring the case on the ground of ‘mistake of fact’. Subsequently, however, in protest thereof by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 166, 447, 448 and 427 IPC against the accused and now the case is pending as C.C.No.395 of 2008 before the learned Magistrate. Subsequently, however, in protest thereof by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 166, 447, 448 and 427 IPC against the accused and now the case is pending as C.C.No.395 of 2008 before the learned Magistrate. The present criminal petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.395 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, Kadapa Distirct contending that even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint petition are true, the petitioners have discharged their statutory duty pursuant to the orders passed in O.A.No.32 of 2002 dated 01.04.2002 and they did not commit any offence. It is also further contended by them that no orders of status quo have been served on them prior to eviction even according to the investigation conducted by the police and therefore they cannot be attributed of committing any offence. They also contend that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the case in the absence of the required sanction against the petitioners who are public servants discharging their legitimate duties. The other contentions urged by them are that the remedy, if any, of the second respondent is only a civil remedy for violation of orders passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. They also brought to the notice of this court that in C.M.A.No.6 of 2008 filed by the first petitioner representing the temple against the orders passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur in I.A.No.361 of 2008, seeking to set aside the order directing redelivery of possession to the second respondent, the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur held that the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur directing redelivery of property is illegal and unenforceable and it is in the nature of permitting re-entry of an encroacher, ultimately the C.M.A. was allowed granting costs throughout dismissing the I.A.No.361 of 2005 filed by the second respondent. However, the crucial point to be determined is whether prima facie the alleged action of the petitioners in dispossessing the second respondent from the petition schedule shop room amounts to any criminal offence even considering the allegations mentioned in the complaint are true and whether the petitioners are liable for prosecution for the offence alleged in the complaint. However, the crucial point to be determined is whether prima facie the alleged action of the petitioners in dispossessing the second respondent from the petition schedule shop room amounts to any criminal offence even considering the allegations mentioned in the complaint are true and whether the petitioners are liable for prosecution for the offence alleged in the complaint. Here it is necessary to consider the fact that the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments by his orders in O.A.No.32 of 2002 directed eviction of the second respondent (complainant) treating him as an encroacher. It is also relevant to consider in this context that when after the order of eviction was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the encroacher failed to vacate the premises, the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments can be executed by physically evicting the encroacher even with the help of the police. Further, under Section 84 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 the aggrieved person can only institute a suit against the order of the Deputy Commissioner only on the limited ground that the charitable or religious institution or endowment has no title to the land, building or space. The second proviso specifically lays down that no such suit shall be instituted by a person who is let in to the possession of the land, building or space, or who is a lessee, licensee or mortgagee, of the institution or endowment. As per Sub-section 3, no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any proceedings taken or about to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 83. In view of the above mentioned provisions, the Junior Civil Judge ought not to have entertained the suit filed by the second respondent since it is not maintainable. The Apex Court in P.K. PRADHAN v. STATE OF SIKKIM REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ( 2001(6) SCC 704 ) has clearly laid down that to determine whether sanction is required under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. to prosecute a public servant, the act complained of (1) must be an offence, (2) must be done in discharge of official duty, there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. In the instant case, certainly taking steps for physically evicting the second respondent is not an offence since it is in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act. In the instant case, certainly taking steps for physically evicting the second respondent is not an offence since it is in accordance with the provisions of the Endowments Act. Further, there is a reasonable nexus between the official duty and the act allegedly committed by the petitioners in discharge of their official duty. It is true that the question of requirement of sanction can be raised at any time after taking cognizance of the offence, but the primary object of the requirement of sanction envisaged under Section 198 Cr.P.C. is to protect the public servants from being dragged into unnecessary and frivolous criminal prosecutions. However, in the instant case, the order which has been allegedly violated by the petitioners is the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur who has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Further, even according to the investigation conducted by the police, the order of status quo passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge was not served on the petitioners. Furthermore, since the alleged act of dispossession committed by the petitioners is not prompted by any mala fides or motives, the proper remedy, if any, available to the second respondent only lies in the civil Court for breach of order granting status quo passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. Considering the facts, namely, the order which has allegedly been violated was passed without jurisdiction and was ultimately reversed in the C.M.A.No.6 of 2008 by the appellate authority, the amended Endowments Act authorizes the petitioners to remove the encroachments even with the help of police as provided under Section 84 of the Act when the encroacher even after passing of the order of eviction by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments failed to vacate the premises involving the petitioners in a criminal case therefore, in my opinion is misconceived and is nothing but abuse of process of law. If the proceedings in C.C.No.395 of 2008 are allowed to continue, it will result in undue hardship and lot of inconvenience to the petitioners which ultimately leads to miscarriage of justice. In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.395 of 2008 relating to Crime No.86 of 2006, dated 06.06.2006 of Station House Officer, Proddatur Police Station, Kadapa District are quashed. The criminal petition is allowed.