JUDGMENT R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 8 in S.C. S.T. No. 4 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool District, for offences under Sections 447, 420, 323, 506, 509, 354 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x)(g)(f)(i) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. The allegations in the complaint against the 21persons arrayed as accused in the complaint are as follows: a) The de facto complainant acquired title and possession over the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.128/1 of Pandlapuram Revenue Village, Kurnool District, by way of a registered deed of settlement executed in her favour by her husband on 14.03.2017. The husband of the de facto complainant acquired this land by virtue of a partition between himself and his three sisters. b) However, the 1st accused by way of registered deeds of sale dated 22.04.2006 and accused Nos.2 & 3 by way of a registered deed of sale dated 24.04.2010 and by way of a registered deed of sale dated 25.04.2012 had clandestinely created rights for themselves from one Late K. Ahmed Hussaini. On the basis of these clandestine documents, the accused Nos.1 to 3 accompanied by accused Nos.4 to 21 had obstructed the de facto complainant and her husband from carrying on agricultural operations in the land on 26.08.2018. On that day, all the accused attacked the de facto complainant and abused her in the name of her community. The husband of the de facto complainant was also assaulted when he sought to come to her rescue. On account of this assault, the de facto complainant and her husband has suffered injuries though the said injuries are injuries which are not visible. c) The de facto complainant had moved the Court of the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool District by way of a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court had taken cognizance of this complaint after examining the witnesses on oath. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein had approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Petition for quashing the complaint against them. 4. Heard, Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein had approached this Court by way of the present Criminal Petition for quashing the complaint against them. 4. Heard, Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation for the de facto complainant, despite notice having been served on the de facto complainant in March, 2020 itself. 5. The case of the petitioners is that the allegations in the complaint are false and, in any event, the said allegations do not make out any case against the petitioners herein. The petitioners contend that the property comprising of Ac.3.00 cents of land and another Ac.3.30 cents of land had been purchased from the lawful owner of that land in the years 2010 & 2012 under registered deeds of sale after which the 1st petitioner had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. As the husband of the de facto complainant was trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner with respect to the above land, O.S.No.59 of 2016 was filed by the 1st petitioner before the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganpalle, in which the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganpalle had granted an interim injunction in I.A.No.585 of 2016 in O.S.No.59 of 2016 and the same is still in force. The husband of the de facto complainant being unable to make out a case in the Civil Court has chosen the present path of getting his wife to file a complaint in order to pressurize the 1st petitioner and other accused to agree to the illegal demands of husband of the de facto complainant. It is further contended that the incidents alleged by the de facto complainant never took place and as such the continuation of S.C.S.T.No.4 of 2019 would be an abuse of the process of Court and requires to be quashed. 6. Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel apart from reiterating the aforesaid averments would also challenge the maintainability of the complaint on the following grounds: i. The allegations against 21 accused is that all the accused had abused the de facto complainant in the name of her community. Such a situation is highly improbable and it is not possible that all 21 of the accused had abused the de facto complainant with the same words, at the same time. Such a situation is highly improbable and it is not possible that all 21 of the accused had abused the de facto complainant with the same words, at the same time. For this proposition, she relies upon the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Gara Yesobu & ors Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (2005) 1 ALT (Cri) 213. ii. Section 420 of Indian Penal Code would require an allegation that the accused had sought to cheat the de facto complainant or any other person for the purposes of dishonestly inducing the person to deliver any property etc., as set out in Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. No such allegation is made against the petitioners herein or any of the accused and as such Section 420 of India Penal Code would not be available against the petitioners. iii. Section 447 of Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for criminal trespass. The question of criminal trespass would arise only if a person enters into a property in the possession any other person with intention to commit an offence etc. In the present case, the 1st petitioner was already in possession of the land and had obtained interim injunction against the husband of the de facto complainant in the year 2016 itself. In view of the interim injunction, it would have to be held that neither the 2nd respondent nor her husband are in possession of the said land and consequently, no case can be made out under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code. iv. Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code stipulates that any man who sexually harasses a woman would be punished as per the provisions of Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code. The requirement for a such an offence to be made out, is the allegation and demonstration of the intention of the man doing any of the acts contain in Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code with the intention of making explicit sexual overtures or demanded for sexual favours. In the present case, the complaint only stated that there was an assault of the de facto complainant for the purposes of pushing her and her husband out of the land which was being cultivated by them. There is no allegation anywhere against any of the accused that they had assaulted the de facto complainant with a sexual intend. In the present case, the complaint only stated that there was an assault of the de facto complainant for the purposes of pushing her and her husband out of the land which was being cultivated by them. There is no allegation anywhere against any of the accused that they had assaulted the de facto complainant with a sexual intend. v. It is also contended that the provisions of Sections 323, 506 & 509 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code would also not be available against the petitioners as the question of assaulting the de facto complainant or the husband of the de facto complaint would not arise in view of the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court. 7. As rightly pointed by Ms. Aishwarya Nagula, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case under Section 420 Indian Penal Code as there is no allegation of any dishonest inducement of doing or not doing any of the acts set out in Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the provisions of Section 435-A of Indian Penal Code also would not arise as the allegations in the complaint are straight forward allegations of physical assault of the de facto complainant and her husband for the purposes of forcible takeover of the land that is alleged to be in the possession of the de facto complainant. Mere allegation of physical assault would not attract the provisions of Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code. There has to be an allegation of such an assault coupled with sexual intent. In the absence of such an allegation, no offence can be made out under Section 354-A of Indian Penal Code. 8. The offence of Criminal trespass as defined under Section 441, is punishable under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code. This would require the offender to enter into a property in the possession of any other person with an intention to commit an offence. In the present case, the orders of the Civil Court in I.A.No.585 of 2016 in O.S.No.59 of 2016 are sufficient to hold that neither the de facto complainant nor her husband can claim un-disputed physical possession over the land. In the absence of this fact, no case can be made out under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code. 9. In the present case, the orders of the Civil Court in I.A.No.585 of 2016 in O.S.No.59 of 2016 are sufficient to hold that neither the de facto complainant nor her husband can claim un-disputed physical possession over the land. In the absence of this fact, no case can be made out under Section 447 of Indian Penal Code. 9. The question of applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 as well as the provisions of Sections 323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code remains. These provisions speak of punishment of persons, under Sections 323, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C. who have assaulted any other person and punishment of persons who have dispossessed members of the SC/ST community from land in their possession or where their land is forcefully occupied. 10. This Court would not, while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C., evaluate the evidence or material available in the case. However, in cases of glaring deficiencies or anomalies, it would be open to this court to look further. Even according to the complaint, there are no visible injuries on the de facto complainant or her husband, despite being severely assaulted by about 21 persons. It is extremely difficult to believe that two persons who have been violently attacked by a mob of 21 people, with the alleged intention of doing away with them, can come out of the assault without any visible injuries. This anomaly is sufficient to hold that there was no assault on that day. 11. The allegations in the complaint itself show that the de facto complainant and her husband are fully aware of the alienation of the property in favour of the 1st petitioner by the earlier owner of the land. Further, the de facto complainant has clearly suppressed the fact of the pendency of O.S.No.59 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle and the ad Interim Injunction in I.A.No.585 of 2016 given against her husband in the year 2016 itself. 12. In these circumstances, this Court holds that the held that the guideline No. 5 and 7 in Paragraph No.102 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in STATE OF HARYANA VS. 12. In these circumstances, this Court holds that the held that the guideline No. 5 and 7 in Paragraph No.102 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604 , would squarely apply as this complaint would have to be treated as a complaint given for malafide reasons and with ulterior motives. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing S.C. S.T. No. 4 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool District, against the petitioners herein. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.