ORDER K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rdrespondent in registering a case in Crime No. 495 of 2015 against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 447 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 basing upon the complaint of the 4th respondent without having authority or jurisdiction as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the FIR in Crime No.495 of 2015 on the file of SHO, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam-3rd respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government leader for Home for the respondents. 3. This Court vide order dated 01.09.2015 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim stay as prayed for. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the 4th respondent herein seeking recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and also for permanent injunction as he acquired the same under a registered gift deed dated 31.07.2008. but 4th respondent contended that they have acquired the land on surrender from the petitioner's late maternal grandfather and they have also paid the compensation to his late maternal grandfather. It is pertinent to submit here that so far they have come with any proof showing that the compensation was paid to the petitioner's late maternal grandfather, but the 4th respondent in collusion with revenue department people, created certain fake documents stating that they have already paid the compensation for the subject land which is now in dispute. He submitted that the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation has assessed the property for property tax in the name of petitioner's mother and to that effect tax passbook was also issued in her favour and electricity connection was also given to the property and as such, it reveals that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Learned counsel mainly contended that the 4th respondent with the help of the 3rdrespondent evicted the petitioner forcibly from the disputed property on 16.12.2009 and as such, he filed the Suit along with another in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for consideration. Learned counsel mainly contended that the 4th respondent with the help of the 3rdrespondent evicted the petitioner forcibly from the disputed property on 16.12.2009 and as such, he filed the Suit along with another in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the same is pending for consideration. During pendency of civil suit, now the 4th respondent with a malafide intention lodged present complaint with a view to cause loss to the petitioner under the guise of the present criminal case with all false and concocted averments. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent without having any authority or power registered the case against the petitioner basing upon the complaint given by the 4th respondent by duly serving a notice on 17.08.2015 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 22.08.2015. Even the 3rd respondent has not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., which is evident from the notice. As per Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, a notice shall be served on him within 15 days from the date of registration of the crime, but the 3rd respondent served the notice nearly after lapse of one and half month from the date of registration of the crime, which is highly illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that under Sections 8 and 12 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (for short 'the Act'), the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint given by the 4threspondent and the competent Court is the Land Grabbing Court established under the Special Act. As such, the complaint in the above crime is liable to be quashed in limini as it is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents while denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, contended that, during the course of investigation the complainant and two witnesses have been examined and recorded their detailed statements. The respondent No.3 has already filed counter affidavit stating that Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C was served on 17.8.2015 on the petitioner herein asking him to produce relevant documents for the purpose of investigation. But the petitioners failed to produce the relevant documents. The respondent No.3 has already filed counter affidavit stating that Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C was served on 17.8.2015 on the petitioner herein asking him to produce relevant documents for the purpose of investigation. But the petitioners failed to produce the relevant documents. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that, when the investigation was under hectic progress the petitioner herein who is accused filed the writ petition and obtained stay of all further proceedings in the above FIR. He further submits that only to divert the attention of the investigating agency, the petitioner instead of cooperating with the investigating agency filed the present petition. Therefore, the petition deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed. 6. On perusing the material on record, this Court observed that the petitioner herein filed suit in OS No.221 of 2010 for grant of recovery of possession of the schedule property and for grant of permanent injunction as he acquired the same by his maternal grandfather under a registered sale deed and the same was given to his mother under a Will. His maternal grandfather was died in the year 1982. However, it is the contention of the 4th respondent that they have acquired the land on surrender from the petitioner's late maternal grandfather and also paid the compensation to his late maternal grandfather. During pendency of the suit, the 4th respondent with a malafide intention filed a complaint before the 3rdrespondent. But the 3rd respondent without having any jurisdiction registered a case. 7. As seen from the complaint, it is observed that, even as per the settled law of principle, the averments of the complaint do not disclose any offence that was committed by the petitioner. Further the 4th respondent with an afterthought and with a malafide intention, that too during the pendency of the civil case before the Competent Civil Court with regard to the self-same subject property, by misusing his official capacity influenced the 3rd respondent to register the case under the provisions of the Act, and the 3rd respondent knowing fully well that he has no jurisdiction or authority to register the case against the petitioner under the provisions of the Special Act, illegally registered the above case against the 8. It is further observed that neither the ingredients of Section 447 nor of Section 120B of the IPC can be stated to be attracted in the instant case, from a reading of the above complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 could not have been applied to the instant case, inasmuch as there is no declaration by the Special Court constituted under the said statute that there has been an act of Land Grabbing. In the absence thereof, there can be no launching of prosecution against any person. Even though no proceedings have been initiated under the said special statute and no declaration was pronounced on this aspect by the Special Court, the provisions of the said special statute have been invoked against the petitioner. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that the very initiation of proceedings and the registration of crime by 3rd respondent is illegal. Further, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as it is the dispute is in civil in nature, the 3rd respondent has no authority to register a case and hence the complaint in the above crime is liable to be quashed. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is observed that, the investigation in this case is not yet completed and whether the petitioner committed any offence punishable under Section 447 IPC can be made out only after completion of investigation. It is settled principle of law that the Court shall not stifle the legitimate investigation more particularly at the initial stage of investigation. The material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to quash the proceedings in FIR Nos. 495/2015 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam with regard to offence punishable under Section 447 IPC. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part by quashing the FIR No.495/2015 on the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam in respect of offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act 1982. However, it is made clear that the investigation with regard to Crime No.495/2015 in respect of offence punishable under Section 447 IPC can be proceeded with against the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the investigation with regard to Crime No.495/2015 in respect of offence punishable under Section 447 IPC can be proceeded with against the petitioner. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.