JUDGMENT S.K. Panigrahi, J. - This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity) has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of 1.C.C. No.22 of 2019 pending before the learned Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 441/ 442/ 467/ 468/ 384/ 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.P.C.' for brevity) read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC and ST (PA) Act' for brevity), and all proceedings consequent thereto. 2. The facts of the present case, in short, are summarized herein below: (a). One Promod Kumar Lenka, an Advocate in Jagatsinghpur is disposed of towards Petitioner No.3 because of professional rivalry. The Petitioner No.1 is an Assistant Teacher in Galupada Atamal U.P. School, Petitioner No.2 is a Superintendent of Sishu Ashram, Jagatsinghpur, Petitioner No.3 is a Government Counsel, Petitioner No.4 is a retired Government employee. Because of avocation, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 reside at Jayabada and they are visitors to the house of Petitioner No.4, who resides in his house with his other family members. The Petitioner No.3 has been adopted since childhood to the Acharya family who has their separate house in the village. The Petitioner No.2 is a resident full- time at Sishu Ashram, Jagatsinghpur and he was visiting to his parents on holiday. The house of Petitioner No.4 is near that of the Opposite Party No.2 approachable through a black-topped public road, a part of which is claimed by Opposite Party No.2 as his ancestral land though it is used as public road. (b). The dispute between Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2 arose when the local self-Government authority decided to construct a cement-concrete road over the existing black-topped road leading to the wife of Opposite Party No.2 to lodge a written report at Jagatsinghpur Police Station against the municipal staff supervising the construction work of the road which had been contracted to one Raghunath Mohanty. (c). On 19.09.2019, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged a written report at Jagatsinghpur Police Station against the Petitioner No.3 and three others, which was registered as Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019. (c). On 19.09.2019, the Opposite Party No.2 lodged a written report at Jagatsinghpur Police Station against the Petitioner No.3 and three others, which was registered as Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019. During investigation of the aforesaid case, the Opposite Party No.2 filed 1.C.C. No.22 of 2019 on 07.12.2019 before the court of learned Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur against the Petitioners. Prior thereto, on 20.10.2019, Raghunath Mohanty to whom the road construction had been entrusted had lodged a written report at Jagatsinghpur Police Station against the Opposite Party No.2, his wife and others and the same was registered as Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.355 of 2019. (d). On 26.11.2019, the Opposite Party No.2 blocked the road, thereby the family members of Petitioner No.4 denied to go out of their house leading to a written report being lodged at Jagatsinghpur P.S. by Petitioner No.3 against Opposite Party No.2, his wife and another. The written report was registered as Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.427 of 2019. One Sulochana Devi, wife of Petitioner No.4 also lodged FIR on 01.12.2019 against Opposite Party No.2 and three others and the same was registered as Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.431 of 2019. (e). On 29.11.2019, the Opposite Party No.2 filed C.S. No.443 of 2019 and I.A. No.302 of 2019 against the Executive Officer and Junior Engineer of Jagatsinghpur Municipality, Raghunath Mohanty, the Contractor and Petitioner No.3. Thereafter, on 07.12.2019, Petitioner No.3 filed C.S. No.460 of 2019 and I.A. No.314 of 2019 against Opposite Party No.2 and three others. (f). It is further stated that the land in question where the road exists has been in existence as public road since years together and in lieu of that portion, the father of Opposite Party No.2 has been given Government land of same area adjacent to his plot which the family of Opposite Party No.2 is enjoying. The father of Opposite Party No.2, by letter dated 25.07.2019, has addressed to the Executive Officer, Jagatsinghpur Municipality stating that he permitted that particular portion of land for public use since 60 years. The electricity line as well as water supply pipe have been installed thereon by the Municipality. In lieu thereof, the Government has taken the possession and there is no objection to use the said portion as public road. (g). The electricity line as well as water supply pipe have been installed thereon by the Municipality. In lieu thereof, the Government has taken the possession and there is no objection to use the said portion as public road. (g). In the complaint filed against the Petitioners, the Opposite Party No.2 has alleged that the incident happened on 27.11.2019 when the Petitioner No.1 along with accused persons, namely, Rajanikanta Mishra, IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S., Bimal Kumar Lenka, Executive Officer, Jagatsinghpur Municipality and Debabrata Mishra, Junior Engineer, Jagatsinghpur Municipality, had removed the fence from his homestead land and his son was taken forcibly by the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. from his house and further on 29.11.2019 at 8.00 P.M. in the night when it occurred in his house by all the accused persons named in the complaint wherein he has cited his wife and father along with one Pradeep Kumar Das as witnesses for commission of offences punishable under Sections 115B, 120B, 166, 177, 189, 219, 220, 323, 327, 329, 331, 338, 341, 380, 386, 387, 394, 455, 458, 460, 467, 506(II) and 34 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC and ST (PA) Act' for brevity). (h). In the complaint, it is alleged that an area measuring Ac.22 decimal, Khata No.740, Plot No.3259 is homestead land in Mouza- Chatara stands recorded in the name of Opposite Party No.2. In map, the aforesaid area reflects that there is no Government Road and a road was being made by the Executive Officer and Junior Engineer of Jagatsinghpur Municipality under the Government's 'Unnati Yojana' from 'Mela Ghar' to the house of Petitioner No.4, who is not a voter of the village. (i). It is further alleged against the Petitioner No.3 that he has been continuing in the panel of Assistant Public Prosecutor in Judicial Department for the last 20 years being identified as a political leader and was creating goonda-raj in the locality and has got recorded several landed properties in his name from the villagers without any sale deed. After termination from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor by the Director, Public Prosecutions, Orissa without any court order on the basis of forged documents, the Petitioner No.3 and his wife were continuing as teachers on the basis of forged documents. After termination from the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor by the Director, Public Prosecutions, Orissa without any court order on the basis of forged documents, the Petitioner No.3 and his wife were continuing as teachers on the basis of forged documents. The Opposite Party No.2 has further alleged that some months ago he learnt from public gossip about construction of public road forcibly by the Executive Officer and Junior Engineer of Jagatsinghpur Municipality over his homestead plot having been proposed by Petitioner No.3 for which Opposite Party No.4 has sent a Pleader's notice on 03.12.2018 to the Collector, Jagatsinghpur, with a copy to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. requesting that no concrete road should be made on his homestead land. Thereafter, on 28.07.2019, the Petitioner No.3 abused to Opposite Party No.2 in the public casting aspersions on his caste and threatened him for sending notice to the Municipality which he has reported to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. in a FIR. But as no action was taken, the Opposite Party No.2 has again sent the said allegations in writing on 29.07.2019 to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S., but he did not take any action against Petitioner No.3. (j). It is further alleged that on the directions of Petitioner No.3, the Municipality authorities started construction of concrete road over the homestead plot of Opposite Party No.2 through a contractor and created several problems resulting in a written FIR being lodged by him on 19.09.2019. The said FIR has been registered under Sections 294, 506, 447, 379 and 34 of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against Petitioner No.3 vide Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019, instead of registering under Sections 386, 387, 457 and 380 IPC as well as under Section 3 of the SC and ST (PA) Act to show favour to Petitioner No.3 and the contractor. The Opposite Party No.2 further alleged on 27.11.2019 that the Petitioner No.1 along with the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. and the Municipality authority came to his homestead plot in a police van and abused his wife and son, removed the fence and took his son Laxmidhar Samal to the Polie Station. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 went to meet the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, who ordered him to go to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2 went to meet the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, who ordered him to go to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur. Then, the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur informed the Opposite Party No.2 that on the basis of a written FIR registered on Memo No.4565 of the Executive Officer, Jagatsinghpur Municipality; complainant's son has been arrested. Further, it is alleged that on 29.11.2019 the police arrived at his house to arrest him and the Executive Officer and Junior Engineer, Jagatsinghpur Municipality made concrete road over complainant's homestead plot being protected by the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. and the direction of Petitioner No.3, for which complainant has raised a grievance before the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur. When the Opposite Party No.2 went to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. being sent by the Superintendent of Police with Grievance No.24505027071900042 dated 29.11.2019 he was abused and threatened by the I.I.C. in filthy language saying that he does not care for the Superintendent of Police's orders and that both he and Petitioner No.3 were Brahmins and casting aspersions on Opposite Party No.2's caste has threatened him not to obstruct road construction, otherwise he and his family would be arrested and asked him to get out from the Police Station. After three days, on the directions of Petitioner No.3, the I.I.C. forwarded the complainant's son to court in bailable offences in Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.427 dated 27.11.2019 registered under Sections 341, 283, 506, 384 and 34 of the IPC which was registered on the basis of allegations made by Petitioner No.3, whom complainant had named as an accused in Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 dated 19.09.2019. Thereafter, at about 5.00 P.M. police arrived at his house and threatened his wife stating that unless her husband reached the Police Station by 7 o' clock evening he would come in the night hours and arrest both husband and wife again casting aspersions on their caste. (k). Again, at about 8.00 P.M. on 29.11.2019, the Petitioners came to the house of Opposite Party No.2 and Petitioner No.3 forced the wife of Opposite Party No.2 to sign on four blank non-judicial papers threatening that otherwise he would call the police and arrest the couple and also forcibly taken her signatures on six blank non-judicial papers while Petitioner No.1 took away a gold mangalsutra of 3 gms. weight and Petitioner No.2 took away hard cash of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter all of them left complainant's house threatening his wife in filthy language in the public casting aspersions and calling her by their caste name and threatening with dire consequences, if the road construction was opposed. (l). The Opposite Party No.2 further alleged on 02.12.2019 that he gave a written FIR to the Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur for being sent to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur but it was not registered nor copy thereof was supplied to him. Thereafter, he filed complaint in the court with a prayer to send the same to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation. (m). The prayer in the complaint was for a direction to be issued under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. The learned Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur conducted an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. after recording the statement of Opposite Party No.2 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and by order dated 25.02.2020, called a report from the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the progress and present position of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case Nos.311 of 2019 and 427 of 2019. In respect thereto, the I.I.C., Jagatsinghpur P.S. stated that both the cases were investigated into and in Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019, which was duly investigated by the S.D.P.O., Jagatsinghpur and supervised by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur together with enquiry conducted jointly by them, it has been returned as false FIR vide final form No.160 dated 29.02.2020 with the facts having been intimated to the informant. (n). As regards Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.427 of 2019, it is stated that the investigation has led to arrest the son of Opposite Party No.2 on 29.11.2019 and that he has been forwarded to court on the same day and investigation is continuing. It is further alleged that Petitioner No.3 and other villagers wanted a village road, but the Opposite Party No.2 was protesting that construction with the support of his lawyer who has professional rivalry with Petitioner No.3. It is further alleged that Petitioner No.3 and other villagers wanted a village road, but the Opposite Party No.2 was protesting that construction with the support of his lawyer who has professional rivalry with Petitioner No.3. The report was placed before the learned Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur, who after perusing the police report has quietly passed the impugned order under Annexure-1 holding that the incidents which relate to Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case Nos.311 and 427 of 2019 do not relate to the subject matter of 1.C.C. No.22 of 2019 and that prima facie case in respect of offences punishable under Sections 441, 442, 467, 468, 384, 387 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (PA) Act was made out against the Petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance and issued summons for their appearance in court further holding that no sufficient ground was made out for proceeding against the I.I.C. of the aforesaid Police Station as well as the Executive Officer and Junior Engineer of Jagatsinghpur Municipality in respect of any of the penal offences alleged against them besides the fact of want of sanction to prosecute them for incidents that were reasonably connected with discharge of some official duties by them. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2020 passed in 1.C.C No.22 of 2019 by the learned Special Judge Jagatsinghpur under Annexure-1, the present Petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said order and proceedings thereon. 4. Perused the contents of the complaint petition, initial statements of the complainant Bishnu Charan Samal recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the statements of two witnesses i.e. Anjana Bhoi and Pradeep Kumar Das recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the records of G.R. Case No.1060 of 2019, arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019 and G.R. Case No.1398 of 2019 arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.427 of 2019 and found that the I.C.C. No.22 of 2019 has been filed by the complainant for the occurrence of the alleged incident on 29.11.2019 at about 8 P.M. in his house at village-Chatara. The FIR of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019 was lodged by the informant Bishnu Charan Samal (who is the complainant in I.C.C. No.22 of 20219) for the alleged incident on 19.09.2019, in which, the Investigating Officer has submitted final report indicating the same as false case. The FIR of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019 was lodged by the informant Bishnu Charan Samal (who is the complainant in I.C.C. No.22 of 20219) for the alleged incident on 19.09.2019, in which, the Investigating Officer has submitted final report indicating the same as false case. The FIR of Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.427 of 2019 was lodged by the accused, namely, Krushna Chandra Acharya against the complainant of the case i.e. against Bishnu Charan Samal and others for the alleged incident on 27.11.2019, in which, the investigation is going on. 5. As such, the alleged incidents of the above two police cases vide Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.311 of 2019 and 427 of 2019 are not the subject matter of inquiry of the complaint vide 1.C.C. No.22/2019. 6. Therefore, an order, whether processes are to be issued or not to be issued against the persons (named as accused persons in the complaint petition vide I.C.C. No.22/2019) is to be passed on satisfaction after perusing the complaint petition of the complainant, initial statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. 7. On perusal of the aforesaid materials available on record, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against Krushna Chandra Acharya, Nalini Prava Acharya, Anjaneya Acharya and Banshidhar Das for their implications with the offences under Sections 441, 442, 467, 468, 384 and 387 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v)(s) of the SC and ST (PA) Act and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 441, 442, 467, 468, 384 and 387 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v)(s) of the SC and ST (PA) Act against the accused persons, namely Krushna Chandra Acharya, Nalini Prava Acharya, Anjaneya Acharya and Bansidhar Das. Thereafter, he issued summons to the aforesaid accused persons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. for their implications with the offences under Sections 441, 442, 467, 468, 384 and 387 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v)(s) of the SC and ST (PA) Act directing them to appear before the court. Thereafter, he issued summons to the aforesaid accused persons under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. for their implications with the offences under Sections 441, 442, 467, 468, 384 and 387 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v)(s) of the SC and ST (PA) Act directing them to appear before the court. However, he further held that the materials available on record do not make out a case against three persons i.e. Rajani Kanta Mishra (IIC, Jagatsinghpur P.S.) Bimal Kumar Lenka (Executive Officer, Jagatsinghpur, Municipality) and Debabrata Mishra (Junior Engineer, Jagatsinghpur, Municipality) in respect of any of the Penal offences. In addition to that, he further held that there is want of sanction from the appropriate Government under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for their prosecution in the case in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, 2020 (2) OJR (SC) 435 as the acts alleged against them are reasonably corrected with their discharging official duties. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge dismissed the complaint filed by Bishnu Charan Samal under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. against the afore-stated accused persons. The Bench Clerk was directed to issue processes to the accused persons namely, Krushna Chandra Acharya, Nalini Prava Acharya, Anjaneya Acharya and Bansidhar Das for their appearance before this Court in this case on dated 27.01.2020 for their implications with the offences under Sections under Sections 441, 442, 467, 468, 384 and 387 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(v)(s) of the SC and ST (PA) Act. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and contended that where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an anterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spit him due to private and personal grudge as is there in the present complaint, this Court has jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid proceeding. He further contended that averments made in column 8, sub- paragrah on which reliance has been placed by the learned Special Judge do not establish prima facie case against the preset Petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 441/ 442/ 467/ 468/ 384/ 387 of the I.P.C. In addition, no offence under Section 3(i)(r)(s) of the S.C. and S.T. (PA) Act has been made out against the present Petitioners, since the alleged occurrence has never occurred in a public place, but inside the house of the complainant. 9. Before adverting to the case of the Petitioners, it would be apposite to have a look on the case of Indian Oil Corporation vrs.- NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the judgment passed in G. Sagar Suri and Another vrs.- State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 :, have held as follows: '13..it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/ creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriage/ families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vrs. State of U.P. and Others: (2000) 2 SCC 636 , this Court observed: 'It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.' 14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant' 10. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the case in hand is addressed, the ingredients of the offences are as such prima facie lacking in this case, to proceed against the petitioners. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, when the case in hand is addressed, the ingredients of the offences are as such prima facie lacking in this case, to proceed against the petitioners. More so, perusal of the materials on record goes to show that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences both under the Penal Code as well as under the S.C. and S.T (PA) Act are not made out against the Petitioners and no prima-facie cognizable offences are made out. Since the alleged incident has never occurred in public place but inside the house of the complainant, it cannot be said that the order of cognizance and issuance of process there under is well founded in law. 11. Hence, this Court is of the view that, the criminal proceeding against the present Petitioners was without any substance and as such this CRLMC stands allowed and the impugned order stands set aside. Consequently, the prosecution against the Petitioners in I.C.C. No.22 of 2019 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Jagatsinghpur stands quashed. The court concerned on receipt/ production of the certified copy of this order shall do well to drop the aforesaid proceeding against the Petitioners. 12. With the aforesaid order, this CRLMC stands disposed of being allowed.