ORDER : 1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A3 and A4 in C.C.No. 388 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. The 1st respondent herein, who is the defacto complainant (hereinafter called as ‘defacto complainant’), has lodged a report to the police alleging that the accused herein have scolded in vulgar language and threatened to evict from the house, otherwise, they will kill the 1st respondent and his family members and there is no such hesitation to go to jail. 3. Basing upon the said report lodged by the defacto complainant, the police registered the case in Crime No. 295 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. r/w Section 34 I.P.C. and investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the accused with the following averments: 4. About 30 years back, the defacto complainant and her husband requested the father of the 1st accused and husband of the 2nd accused to give some house site at 7/7, Srinagar, Guntur, build one asbestos sheeted house and residing into it by grazing the buffalos and while the things stood thus, A1 and A2 are forcing the defacto complainant to vacate the house. In this connection, some grudges that are prevailing in between the defacto complainant and the accused are surfaced. 5. Accusation precisely: On 01.05.2014 at about 8-30 a.m., the A1 and A2 went to the house of the defacto complainant, made quarrel with them, beat them with hands and abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. 6. While filing the charge sheet, the police have deleted the names of A3 and A4 from the array of the accused. Aggrieved by deletion of the names of A3 and A4 from the array of the accused in the charge sheet, the defacto complainant herein filed a Protest Petition before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, vide Crl.M.P.No. 5836 of 2015, and the learned Judge, by order dated 23.09.2016, has allowed the said petition and added A3 and A4 as accused, asserting that the investigating officer did not include A3 and A4 as accused and there is prima facie case against the A3 and A4. 7. 7. On perusing the sworn statement and the report lodged by the defacto complainant and other material available on record, it is alleged that A1 to A4 beat the defacto complainant and also threatened them. On perusal of the order, learned Magistrate has misunderstood the array of accused wrongly. In fact, the police have deleted the names of A3 and A4 in the charge sheet from the array of the accused, but the learned Magistrate has stated that police have deleted the names of A2 and A3. As seen from the orders and the charge sheet, there is no specific allegation against A3 and A4 and it is also pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has not examined the defacto complainant on oath while adding A3 and A4 basing upon the protest petition. 8. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory that the Court while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and even though law is otherwise with regard to the witnesses, it is mandatory on the part of the Court to examine the complainant on oath. 9. After filing the charge sheet, the Court below has registered the case as C.C.No. 388 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which has been assailed in the present Criminal Petition on the ground that the A1 and A2 are the original owners of the property and they have filed a civil suit O.S.No. 310 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for eviction of the defacto complainant and the same was decreed, when the accused filed the suit for eviction, then the defacto complainant has filed the present complaint to convert the civil dispute into a criminal dispute and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint or charge sheet and it is an admitted fact that they are the owners of the property. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: (1) Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 67 (2) Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (Govt. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: (1) Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 67 (2) Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018 (3) Mahmood Ali and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 Live Law (SC) 613 (4) Mohandas and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, Crl. MC. No. 8096 of 2017 dated 26.07.2023 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Usha Chakraborty’s case (supra) and the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Mohandas’s case (supra) for the proposition that it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and apply his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the learned Magistrate has not assigned reasons while taking cognizance against A3 and A4. 12. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta’s case (supra) and Mahmood Ali’s case (supra), where in both cases, the Apex Court has delineated the guidelines framed in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 which was succinctly stated herein where the allegations made in FIR even if they are taken on face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence and the evidence collected in support of the case do not disclose the commission of any offence and when the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or with a view to spite the due to private and personal grudge can be quashed and, in the present case, the present criminal proceedings are initiated to wreak vengeance, but for filing of the civil suit, hence, prayed to quash the case. 13. In the present case, though the Court has misunderstood the array of the accused, but however, has assigned reasons for taking cognizance. 13. In the present case, though the Court has misunderstood the array of the accused, but however, has assigned reasons for taking cognizance. Therefore, the purport of the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Mohandas’s case (supra) that the Court has not applied his mind is untenable. 14. In order to invoke Section 34 I.P.C., against the accused Nos.3 & 4, prior concert or a pre-arranged plan has to be established and though common intention has to be inferred from one’s act, or conduct and other relevant circumstances, it is not necessary that any overt-acts must have been done by any particular accused. It is enough if the criminal act has been done by one of the accused in furtherance of the common intention. It requires pre-arranged plan because before a person can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of them all. In other words, there must have been prior meeting of minds. The plan need not be elaborate nor is a long interval of time required. 15. In the instant case, there is no evidence to reasonably to infer that the accused Nos.3 & 4 had a pre-meeting of mind or pre-concert with accused Nos.1 & 2 and that in furtherance of such common intention, to bring criminal act of another to fix for vicariously liability for the criminal act of another. 16. As seen from the statements of L.Ws.1, 2 and 3, there is no specific allegation against A3 and A4 when the defacto complainant has warned the accused A3 and A4, they were remained static at the scene of offence, but they have not participated or have not threatened with dire consequences or have beat the defacto complainant or her family members. Therefore, there is no specific allegation against A3 and A4. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the case against A3 and A4 is liable to be quashed. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that there were civil disputes prior to the filing of this complaint and in pursuant to the civil dispute, the present false complaint was inflicted and on perusal of charge sheet coupled with Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, it manifests that no prima facie case is made out against the accused, hence, it is prayed to quash the proceedings. 19. 19. On perusal of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, it can be said that there are assertions in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements about the civil dispute and the list of witnesses have categorically stated to the accused to settle the civil dispute, if any, through Court, despite that the petitioners have scolded in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences and the allegations in the charge sheet as well as in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement constituted the ingredients of Sections 509, 323 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. 20. Merely a civil dispute in between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, it cannot be said that a complaint was falsely instigated against the petitioners/accused herein, indeed the civil dispute is the causative or conducive for the initiation of criminal proceedings. 21. The Apex Court in the judgment passed in Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 also held that High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must make just and rightful choice at this stage neither truthfulness of the allegations levelled by the complainant can be evaluated nor can weight of defence evidence be determined. Where allegations bring out all ingredients of charge levelled, and material placed before Court prima facie shows truthfulness of allegations, trial must proceed even when accused is successful in raising some suspicion or doubt in allegations leveled. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. 22. In the case of Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 , the Supreme Court held as under: "Needless to record however and it being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint." 23. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint." 23. At present stage, this Court is only required to evaluate the material and documents available on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and no legal grounds raised by the petitioner/A1 to quash. 24. In the present case, prima facie constitute an offence against accused No. 1 as held by the Apex Court when prima facie case constitutes an offence this Court cannot exercise the power vested under section 482 Crl.P.C to quash the case. 25. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed against 1st petitioner i.e., accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 died before filing of the Criminal Petition. Insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.3 & 4 are concerned, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the case against accused Nos.3 & 4 is hereby quashed. 26. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. 27. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in this case, shall stand closed.