ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short 'Cr.P.C.'] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code, [for short 'IPC']. 2. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows: a. The son of the complainant i.e., Vemuru Uday Kiran purchased land admeasuring 0.12 cents in Sy.No.131-26A in Poosapati Village from Buttala Krishnamma and Buttala Apparao, vide registered D.No.2255/2016. Petitioner/Accused submitted false documents and got the said land registered in his name. When the complainant and his son requested to cancel the said document, Petitioner/Accused did not heed to their request. Then, a complaint was lodged with Superintendent of Police in Spandana vide complaint No.1401/18.12.2019. b. Complainant presented the present report which was registered as a case in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram. 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against him, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds : a. There are civil disputes between the Petitioner and the son of Respondent No.2, who allegedly was claiming rights over the land purchased by the Petitioner. b. As the son of Respondent No.2 was claiming title, Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.717 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram against the son of Respondent No.2 and Smt. Buttala Krishnamma seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. On 11.11.2019, an interim order was passed in the said suit directing the Respondents therein not to interfere with the petition schedule property and not to demolish the compound wall. c. As the son of Respondent No.2 suffered an interim order, Respondent No.2 lodged a false complaint against the Petitioner so as to harass him and deprive him of his legitimate rights over the property belonging to him. d. The allegations made against the Petitioner do not disclose any offence against him. As such, continuation of criminal proceedings in the above crime against the Petitioner, is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. d. The allegations made against the Petitioner do not disclose any offence against him. As such, continuation of criminal proceedings in the above crime against the Petitioner, is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 did not turn up to submit arguments. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offences and that there are civil disputes pending between the parties. it is urged that a civil dispute is given the colour of a criminal offence. It is stated that the present case has been registered against the Petitioner based on the bald and omnibus allegations and no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the alleged offence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District? 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) 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 powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. 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 IPC. 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 prima 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. (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. (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 is 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) 10. In Gulam Mustafa (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court having expounded the law on the jurisdiction under Section 482, held thus; “36. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. …” (emphasis supplied) 11. …” (emphasis supplied) 11. Here, it is the case of Respondent No.2 that his son Vemuru Uday Kiran purchased land of an extent of Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.131-26A of Pusapatirega Village, in 2016 vide Doc.No.2255/2016 and that the Petitioner by creating false documents got the said property registered in his name and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 423 IPC. Admittedly, Petitioner/Accused filed O.S.No.717 of 2019 against Vemuri Udaya Kiran and Buttala Krishnamma, who is alleged to have been his vendor on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram seeking declaration of title over the subject property and for consequential injunction and the same is pending trial. It is contended by the Petitioner herein in the said suit that he purchased the land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.131/31 of Poosapatirega Village under a Registered Sale Deed dated 17.11.2000 and constructed a Gas godown in some part of the said land and he also constructed a compound wall around the godown and the vacant site purchased by him and has been paying requisite tax to the Gram Panchayat for the last several years. When there arose a dispute with the Western side neighbours, the Petitioner herein got surveyed the property in his occupation and came to know that the subject property is also within the compound wall constructed by him. Subsequently, the Petitioner purchased the subject land i.e., Ac.0.12 cents in Sy.No.131/26A from its owner i.e., Buttala Krishnamma for valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 03.10.2019. Thereafter, the Petitioner was given to understand that the son of Respondent No.2 herein i.e., Vemuri Udaya Kiran alleged to have obtained a registered sale deed from said Buttala Krishnamma and her son in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.0.09 cents to the South of the subject property with wrong survey number. 12. The above facts disclose that the boundaries of the schedule property are different from the boundaries said to have been mentioned in the sale deed of Vemuri Udaya Kiran, who is the son of Respondent No.2 herein. There is a difficulty in identifying the property and there is a cloud on the title over the subject property. The matter is purely civil in nature. There is a difficulty in identifying the property and there is a cloud on the title over the subject property. The matter is purely civil in nature. In Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Another v. State of Kerala & Others, (2015) 8 SCC 293 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : “It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In view of the above facts of the present case, there are no specific allegations with regard to the commission of the alleged offences by the Petitioners. Further, the allegations mentioned in the complaint would clearly show that the matter is purely of civil nature and the same is given a cloak of criminal offence to settle the civil dispute pending between the parties. Even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner. Therefore, 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. 14. Therefore, 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. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 423 IPC. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.