ORDER : 1. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the parties including the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.. 2. Prayer in this criminal petition is to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in Crime No.245 of 2013 of Narayanguda Police Station. 3. A perusal of record reveals that the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Court of IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad alleging that the petitioners herein and two others have committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 452, 506 and 120-B of IPC. The said complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Narayanguda Police Station for investigation and report. On that, Police registered a case against the petitioners and two others and took up investigation. Aggrieved by the said steps taken by the Court as well as the Police, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned factual scenario, the point that emerges for consideration is; Whether there exist any justifiable grounds to invoke the powers granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in Crime No.245 of 2013 of Narayanguda Police Station as prayed for. 5. Making his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners contended that the entire dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and when the petitioners demanded their lawful share in the area to which they are entitled to, the 2nd respondent being a developer from whom the petitioners along with others purchased flats, gave a false complaint, and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for redressal. The learned counsel also stated that basing on the issue which is purely civil in nature, M/s.Arihant Gulmohar Flat Owners’ Association which is represented by the 3rd petitioner herein, filed a suit against the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the same is pending, and therefore, to wreck vengeance, the 2nd respondent gave a complaint to Police. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations in the complaint clearly goes to show that the petitioners committed theft of material attracting Section 379 of IPC, and therefore, it cannot be termed that the dispute is civil in nature and thus, quashing the proceedings is impermissible under law. Vehemently opposing the said submission, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations in the complaint clearly goes to show that the petitioners committed theft of material attracting Section 379 of IPC, and therefore, it cannot be termed that the dispute is civil in nature and thus, quashing the proceedings is impermissible under law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that unless and until investigation to the fullest extent is carried out, the truth or otherwise in the matter would not come to light, and therefore, permission has to be accorded for proceeding with the investigation. 6. To discuss on merits, the issues involved, a perusal of the contents of the complaint are essential. The 2nd respondent presented a complaint before the Court contending that he is a businessman and he undertakes development of lands as apartments and offices. In the similar manner, he developed land in premises No.3-6-433 for construction of apartments through a builder. As per the development agreement, he handedover the parking areas in the ground floor and cellar and also some other flats. As per the development agreement, the prospective purchasers of the flats are entitled to purchase parking area separately from him. The purchasers gave an undertaking that they are fully satisfied with the construction and they have no claim whatsoever against the builder or developer. When the matter stood thus, on 16.03.2013, the petitioners and other accused who have not purchased the parking area, illegally trespassed into the parking area and parked their vehicles. When requested, they abused him in filthy language and threatened. Further, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed theft of construction material worth Rs.9,00,000/-by opening the locks of rooms in cellar and terrace portion. 7. When the learned counsel for petitioners contended that to wreck vengeance as the Flat Owners’ Association filed a suit vide O.S.No.562 of 2008 before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a complaint, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant contended that the said suit has nothing to do with the complaint that was given by his client and as the petitioners and two others committed the offences of theft etc., a complaint was given. 8. 8. A meticulous perusal of the complaint along with connected material that is produced by the petitioners, more particularly the plaint in the suit that is referred above, the compromise deed dated 27.08.2005 etc., this Court finds that the entire dispute is in respect of the alleged common area in the apartment. It is also clear that the 2nd respondent being a developer, is claiming the said area and on the other hand, the Flat Owners’ Association is projecting its title. Thus, to that extent, the dispute is purely civil in nature. The leaned counsel for the 2nd respondent stressed on the point that the petitioners and two others trespassed and committed theft of the building material. When both parties are claiming title and right over the same area, the aspect of trespassing into the same by one party does not, in true sense, amount to an act of criminal trespass prohibited under the Indian Penal Code. Coming to the aspect of theft of the construction material, material particulars are lacking in the complaint. At least, the date and time of the alleged offence, is not stated. Therefore, this Court is unable to gather prima facie material which strengthens the allegations made. 9. Submitting that in the similar circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a view that the proceedings are not maintainable and thereby quashed the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between D.P.Gulati, Manager Accounts, M/s.Jetking Infotrain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2015 SC 3760 , wherein, the Supreme Court at paras 7 to 9, observed as follows : “7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made before us. From a bare perusal of section 482 of the code, it is clear that the object of exercise of power under the section is to prevent abuse of process of law, and to secure ends of justice. In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 3 SCC 330 , this Court has enumerated the steps required to be followed before invoking inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under section 482 of the code as under: “30. In Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 3 SCC 330 , this Court has enumerated the steps required to be followed before invoking inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under section 482 of the code as under: “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C: 30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3 Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 8. In Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P, 2014 7 SCC 215 , explaining the law in the similar circumstances, as in the present case, this Court observed, in para 17, as under: “17. In Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P, 2014 7 SCC 215 , explaining the law in the similar circumstances, as in the present case, this Court observed, in para 17, as under: “17. It is no doubt true that the courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold.” In Rishipal Singh, the complainant, who was an accused in connection with an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, had filed a criminal complaint relating to offences punishable under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 467, 468, 471 and 477 IPC. 9. In view of the above position of law, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, and after going through the criminal complaint filed against Respondent No.2 and thereafter, one filed by him against the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case of abuse of process of law on the part of Respondent No.2.” 10. By the discussion that went on supra regarding the merits of the case, it is clear that the complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent to settle his civil scores. The facts asserted in the complaint lack material particulars. Therefore, even if proceedings are permitted to continue, the complaint being the basis of the same and as it lacks material particulars, would not yield any favourable result to the prosecution. Further continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and will not serve the ends of justice. Therefore, this court is of the view that the proceedings are liable to be quashed as prayed for. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioners in Crime No.245 of 2013 of Narayanguda Police Station are hereby quashed. 12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.