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 No.5, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.643 of 2019 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City registered for the offences under Sections 427, 420, 447, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, [for short ‘IPC’]. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a. The property of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in Sy.Nos.394/13 and 394/15B was purchased by the parents of Respondent No.2 and 12 others from Alla Appala Naidu and Alla Ramu Naidu. After the demise of his parents, Respondent No.2 inherited the said property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. b. After the demise of the vendors of Respondent No.2, their sons i.e., Accused Nos.1 to 3 created forged documents for the said land and executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Accused Nos.4 and 5. That being so, on 20.12.2019 at 10.30 a.m., Accused No.4 and Petitioner/Accused No.5 trespassed into the land of Respondent No.2, damaged the trees, notice boards and cement fencing poles with JCB situated in the said land and thereby cheated Respondent No.2. c. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 5 which is registered as the present crime. Grounds for Quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioner/ Accused No.5 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds. a. The allegations made against the Petitioner do not attract the offences alleged. b. Respondent No.2 does not have personal knowledge about the alleged trespass. When Respondent No.2 went to the place, some persons informed about the same and the Petitioner along with other Accused ran away. But, Respondent No.2 strangely alleged that they threatened him with dire consequences. c. The subject matter is purely a civil dispute and civil suits were also filed by the Accused about the same subject property and the interim injunction granted in favour of Respondent No.2 was also vacated after due examination. d. The boundaries and extent of the property of the Petitioner are different and distinct from that of the property of Respondent No.2 as held by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. d. The boundaries and extent of the property of the Petitioner are different and distinct from that of the property of Respondent No.2 as held by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. It clearly shows that the Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case to gain wrongfully. e. The present complaint has been filed against the Petitioner and four other Accused only to settle the civil disputes between the parties. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri P.V.S.A. Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Though notice to Respondent No.2 was sent, the same was unserved as unclaimed and, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused No.5 would submit that Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.935 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction, wherein Petitioner herein was shown as Defendant No.2. The temporary injunction granted initially in the said suit was dismissed on merits holding that Respondent No.2 herein was not in possession of the property and the subject property is a different property. Thereafter, the present case has been lodged with false and untenable allegations. There are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner for the commission of alleged offence. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. 6. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. There are no 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 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 No.5 in Crime No.643 of 2019 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City? Determination by the Court 8. Point for Determination 7. 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 No.5 in Crime No.643 of 2019 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City? 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. 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. 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. (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. (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 the instant case, it is evident from the material placed on record that Respondent No.2 and others filed a suit in O.S.935 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction against the Petitioner herein and another and an ad-interim injunction was granted on 11.09.2017. Subsequently, said order was vacated vide Order dated 29.12.2017 in I.A.No.1618 of 2017 in O.S.No.935 of 2017 holding that Respondent No.2 herein and others did not have any property as shown in the schedule and the existence of such property itself is doubtful. It was further held that Respondent No.2 herein and others had filed the said suit by showing wrong boundaries with an intention to claim the property of Petitioner herein and another. 11. Further, when the nephew of Respondent No.2 trespassed into the land of the Petitioner and damaged the fencing, the Petitioner lodged a complaint in Crime No.583 of 2017 on 26.08.2017 for the offence under Sections 447 and 427 IPC. After registration of the said crime and after vacation of the ad-interim injunction granted in favour of Respondent No.2, the present complaint has been filed. Therefore, it is clear from the Order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam that Respondent No.2 has not been in possession of the subject property and the said property belongs to Petitioner herein. Such being the case, the contention of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner herein trespassed into the subject land and the consequential offences under rest of the Sections does not arise. Such being the case, the contention of Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner herein trespassed into the subject land and the consequential offences under rest of the Sections does not arise. Furthermore, the allegations mentioned in the complaint would clearly show that the matter is purely of civil nature and the same is given the cloak of criminal offence to settle the civil dispute pending between the parties. 12. In Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No.12 held as follows : “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) 13. In view of the above discussion and in view of the first guideline in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), 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. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.5 in Crime No.643 of 2019 on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City for the offences under Sections 427, 420, 447, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.