ORDER : 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No. 58 of 2020 on the file of Buchireddypalem Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘IPC’]. 2. The allegations made in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: (a) Respondent No. 2 has a family property admeasuring Ac. 6.16 cents in Sy. No. 143-2 and Sy. No. 144/1 in Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Though she is the owner of the said land, Petitioner and his family members are not permitting her to cultivate the said land and they obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the said land. From the past three years, she has been cultivating the said land and the Petitioner is not permitting her to do so by sending his men. (b) While so, on 10.03.2018 at about 8.30 a.m. while her men were cutting the crop, Petitioner came there, threatened them with dire consequences, cut the crop and took away the same by a tractor. On coming to know about the same, Respondent No. 2 lodged the present complaint. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the following grounds: (a) The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are absolutely false and the same is lodged only to harass him. (b) The entire dispute is a civil dispute and the Petitioner and the Complainant are close relatives and are the common owners of various extents of land. (c) Petitioner and her paternal aunt namely K. Annapurna are the absolute owners of the subject land and the Revenue Authorities also issued Pattadar Pass Book and title deed in their favour. While so, on 09.01.2017 Respondent No. 2 filed an Appeal under R.O.R. Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer for cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed issued by the Tahsildar in favour of the Petitioner and K. Annapurna, without making the Petitioner as a party. (d) The Revenue Divisional Officer passed order in RCJ 107/2017 by cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deeds. There is no provision for filing appeal under R.O.R. Act and the same is not sustainable. (d) The Revenue Divisional Officer passed order in RCJ 107/2017 by cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deeds. There is no provision for filing appeal under R.O.R. Act and the same is not sustainable. (e) K. Annapurna filed W.P. No. 38687 of 2017 before this Court challenging the orders passed by The R.D.O. Nellore and this Court was pleased to pass interim suspension orders on 16.11.2017. (f) Respondent No. 2 again approached the Tahsildar for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds in her faovur and also for possession certificate. On receipt of the notice from the Tahsildar, Petitioner submitted a representation by narrating the facts. (g) Petitioner also filed W.P. No. 8453 of 2020 to prohibit the Tahsildar from conducting enquiry and to decide the issue of possession and title over the subject land and this Court was pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the enquiry initiated by the Tahsildar. (h) Respondent No. 2 with the help of Revenue Authorities, is trying to grab the property of the Petitioner. (i) Petitioner and his paternal aunt K. Annapurna are the owners of the subject land and hence, the question of trespass of theft of any paddy, does not arise. In March, 2019 Petitioner lodged a complaint in FIR No. 80 of 2019 against Respondent No. 2 under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC as she tried to trespass into the subject land. Hence, as a counterblast, Respondent No. 2 lodged the present complaint. (j) Respondent No. 2 with the help of Revenue Officials, is trying to enter her name in the Revenue Records in respect of the subject property and has been harassing the Petitioner with the help of Police and filed the present complaint with false allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are absolutely false and the same is lodged with a view to harass the Petitioner. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner are absolutely false and the same is lodged with a view to harass the Petitioner. He would submit that the entire dispute is a civil dispute and the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are close relatives and they are the common owners of various extents of lands. It is also submitted that the Revenue Authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the Petitioner and her paternal aunt K. Annapurna with regard to the subject property. As such, the Petitioner has not committed the offences alleged against her. It is contended that the present complaint has been lodged with false and untenable allegations, as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by the Petitioner in Crime No. 80 of 2019 against Respondent No. 2. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta & another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & another, (2019) 11 SCC 706 , Commission of Police & Others Vs. Devender Anand & Others, 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1439 and High Court of Telangana in K. Amaravani Vs. State of Telangana and others, 2014 Law Suit (Hyd) 1034. 6. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations leveled against the Petitioner would reveal prime facie case against the Petitioner. Absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 58 of 2020 on the file of Buchireddypalem Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 IPC? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear 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) t o 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 powers 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. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 are close relatives and they are common owners of various lands. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 that, one K. Annapurna, who is the paternal aunt of the Petitioner is the owner of and possessor of the agricultural land of Ac. 6.16 cents in Sy. Nos. 143-2 & 144/1A4 situated at Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and out of the total land, K. Annapurna gave land admeasuring Ac. 2.25 cents to the Petitioner and she has been in occupation of the remaining extent of land in an extent of Ac. 3.91 cents. Perusal of the record shows that the Revenue Authorities issued Form 1B in her favour with regard to said property. 10. Further, a suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1998 was filed by one of the co-sharers of the total joint family properties before the Court of Principal District Judge, Nellore, in which said K. Annapurna was shown as Defendant No. 8 and the father of the Petitioner herein was shown as Defendant No. 4. A preliminary decree dated 08.11.2004 was also passed therein and K. Annapurna and the father of the Petitioner herein were allotted one such share in Plant A schedule properties. The subject property is Item No. 3 of the Plaint ‘A’ schedule property. If such being the case, the question of criminal trespass into the subject property by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 does not arise. The subject property is Item No. 3 of the Plaint ‘A’ schedule property. If such being the case, the question of criminal trespass into the subject property by the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 does not arise. If the offence under Section 447 IPC does not attract, the consequential offences under Sections 427 and 379 IPC also do not attract against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1. 11. Furthermore, the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the Appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 under R.O.R. Act, passed orders in RCJ 107/2017 cancelling the pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the Petitioner and K. Annapurna and the said orders were suspended by this Court in W.P. No. 38687 of 2017 on 16.11.2017 and the name of the Petitioner has been continuing in the revenue records. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he lodged a complaint in FIR No. 80 of 2019 against Respondent No. 2 for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 IPC and as a counterblast to the said case, the present complaint has been lodged, with false allegations. 12. The entire dispute revolves round the subject property and there involves the dispute of title and possession over the subject land. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be directly relating to a civil dispute and Respondent No. 2 resorted to criminal prosecution against the Petitioner by inviting the Police to be interfered with the civil litigation. It is a settled principle of law that interference of the Police in civil disputes would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 58 of 2020 on the file of Buchireddypalem Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 IPC. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.