JUDGMENT / ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'), is preferred by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.65 of 2022 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, registered for the offence under Sections 447, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). 2. The facts mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows : (a) Respondent No.3 has been working as Village Revenue Officer of Yogimallavaram Village. (b) Petitioner/accused filed WP No.1507/2022 before this Court with regard to the land in Sy.Nos.1/1 and 1/2 is the Government Cheruvu Poramboku, wherein, this Court ordered status quo. As such, in view of the said order, either the Government or the petitioner has no right to enter into the said property. (c) That being so, on 12.02.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., in violation of the status quo order of this Court, while the petitioner, alongwith some coolies, was planting paddy crop, when respondent No.3 tried to prevent him in doing so, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences and thereby obstructed him from discharging his duties. (d) As such, he lodged a complaint against the petitioner/accused with the Police, which was registered as a case in Crime No.65/2022 for the above said offences on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Rural Mandal. (e) Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, the petitioner/accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent Nos.1 to 3. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the judgment and decree passed in OS No.578/1990 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Tirupati, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, as such the commission of offence of trespass into the said property by the petitioner and the consequential offences do not arise. Learned Counsel would further submit that the status quo order dated 28.10.2022 passed in WP No.1507 of 2022 by this Court is no way prevented the petitioner from continuation of his cultivation in the subject land. Learned Counsel would further submit that the status quo order dated 28.10.2022 passed in WP No.1507 of 2022 by this Court is no way prevented the petitioner from continuation of his cultivation in the subject land. The petitioner has not committed any offence much less the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case based on the false and untenable allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and hence, prayed to quash the same. 5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. In view of the stay granted, the investigation could not be done and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner/ accused in Crime No.65 of 2022 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District? Determination by the Court 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it dear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a Court of appeal or a Court of revision. It must exercise its power to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter-XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." (Emphasis supplied) 9. As seen from the material on record, in the instant case, the petitioner herein filed a suit in OS No.578 of 1990 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Tirupati and the same was decreed in his favour on 25.08.1995 granting permanent injunction till the disposal of the representation filed by him before the Settlement Officer, Nellore. Whereas the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner in SR No.29/11(a)/88 vide Order dated 22.03.2017 stating that the petitioner herein fabricated the documents and produced them before the Court and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioner. Whereas the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner in SR No.29/11(a)/88 vide Order dated 22.03.2017 stating that the petitioner herein fabricated the documents and produced them before the Court and thereby rejected the claim of the petitioner. Subsequently, the appeal in AS No.57 of 1995 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, preferred by defendant No.3 in the OS No.578 of 1990, was also dismissed vide judgment dated 08.12.1998 further restraining the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, who are the Revenue Authorities, from interfering with the suit schedule land till the disposal of the proceedings before the Director of Settlement Officer. 10. The material would further show that, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition in RP No.21/97 before the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad challenging the order dated 22.03.1997 passed by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor in SR No.29/11(a)/88 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The said revision was allowed on 28.09.1998 setting aside the order of the Joint Collector, stating the documents produced by the petitioner herein amply prove the possession and enjoyment over the subject property. Against the said order the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural filed an appeal/revision before the Commissioner Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, wherein, vide Order dated 31.05.2007, the order passed in RP No.21/97 was quashed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed WP No.6261 of 2008 on the file of this Court and the same was allowed on 18.06.2017 as follows : "All these show that there is some dispute with regard to the nature of the land situated in Survey Nos.1/1 and 1/2 of Yogimallavaram Village. Since the first respondent did not record a finding based on the documentary evidence, this Court is constrained to set aside the order dated 31.05.2007 passed by him and remand the matter to him for consideration of the matter afresh on the basis of the documentary evidence available with the Government as well as the documents to be filed by the respondents. In view of the long pendency of the matter, it is needless to observe that the first respondent shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the long pendency of the matter, it is needless to observe that the first respondent shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner as well as the respondent shall cooperate with the first respondent for disposal of the matter within the said period. It is, needless to observe that the petitioner shall continue to be in possession, if the petitioner is in possession as on the date of filing the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed." 11. As per the directions of this Court the matter was remanded and the Commissioner Appeals vide order dated 21.12.2021 in Proceedings No.Sett.l(1)/259/2017 set aside of the Director of Settlements passed in RP No.21/97, dated 28.09.1998. Subsequently, the petitioner herein filed WP No.18573 of 2021 before this Court, wherein, this Court vide Order dated 31.08.2021 in IA No.1 of 2021 in WP No.18573 of 2021 held as follows : "The respondents were already restrained, but still they are trying to interfere with possession of the subject land without any authority of law. However, the respondents are incompetent to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the decree and judgment granted by the competent Civil Court. Hence, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner during pendency of this writ petition." 12. In view of the above order, the petitioner herein is in possession of the subject land. Later, WP No.18573 of 2021 was dismissed on 30.03.2022, as the petitioner herein had withdrawn the petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed WP No.1507 of 2022 before this Court, challenging the order dated 21.12.2021 in Proceedings No.Sett.l (1)/259/2017 passed by the Commissioner Appeals and this Court passed an interim order dated 21.01.2022 as follows : "Considering the long and chequered history which is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the report of the Tahsildar dated 18.05.2008 and other documents, this Court is of the opinion that a detailed counter is necessary. A number of proceedings have been taken under the relevant statutes and before this Court also with regard to this land. The order impugned reverses an order which was in favour of the petitioner. A number of proceedings have been taken under the relevant statutes and before this Court also with regard to this land. The order impugned reverses an order which was in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that while time should be granted to the respondents to file a counter, the existing status quo as regards the land as on date should be protected and both the parties should maintain the same." 13. The above would go to show that, the petitioner remained in possession of the subject property and the respondents were restrained from interfering with the same. The chronological order of filing of the petitions and the orders passed therein would clearly show that, as on the date of registration of the present crime, the petitioner was in possession of the said property. If such being the case, this Court is of the view that the question of criminal trespass into the subject property which would attract the offence under Section 447 IPC and the consequential offence under Sections 353 and 506 IPC, also do not arise. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion and as per the first guideline in Bhajanlal's case (supra), the allegations made in the complaint, even if are taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner/accused. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against petitioner/accused in Crime No.65 of 2022 on the file of Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, for the offence under Sections 447, 353 and 506 IPC. 16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.