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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No.462 of 2021 on the file of Dharmajigudem Police Station, West Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code[for short ‘IPC’] and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[for short ‘SC and ST Act’]. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: a. Complainant is the possessor of Ac.1.27 cents of agricultural land in Pochavaram, Rangapuram village and he has been cultivating cotton in the said land since six years. In view of the land dispute between him and Petitioner/Accused No.1, the Complainant approached the Hon’ble Court and in turn the Court allowed him to cultivate the said land. Though Petitioner/Accused No.1 asked the Complainant several times to sell the said land to him, the Complainant did not agree for the same. b. That being so, on 25.10.2021 at 11.00 p.m., Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 criminally trespassed into the fields of the Complainant, committed mischief by harvesting the crop with a tractor, caused a loss of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences. c. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint against the Petitioners, which was registered as a case in Crime No.462 of 2021 for the alleged offences. Grounds Sought for Quashment: 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them, on the following grounds: a. A bare perusal of the aforesaid FIR patently discloses inordinate and unexplained delay and deliberate afterthought in preferring the said report i.e., the allegations against the Petitioners are back dated to 25.10.2021 and the police report was preferred by Respondent No.2 on 27.10.2021. b. Respondent No.2 himself executed sale deed in favour of the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.1 with regard to the property alleged to have been trespassed into by the Petitioners. c. Conclusively, the Petitioners have absolute title and ownership over the aforesaid property and Respondent No.2 has no legitimate claim over the same. b. Respondent No.2 himself executed sale deed in favour of the wife of Petitioner/Accused No.1 with regard to the property alleged to have been trespassed into by the Petitioners. c. Conclusively, the Petitioners have absolute title and ownership over the aforesaid property and Respondent No.2 has no legitimate claim over the same. d. The property dispute between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste would not disclose any offence under SC and ST Act unless the allegations are on account of the victim belonging to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. e. The disputes in the police report are already lis and pending for consideration in a suit for permanent injunction before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, vide O.S.No.51 of 2018 without any interim or ad-interim injunction in favour of the Complainant over the property alleged to have been trespassed by the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none represented for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are falsely implicated in the present crime. It is stated that complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction O.S.No.51 of 2018 and no interim orders of injunction was passed in the said suit. As such, the present complaint has been lodged on 27.10.2021 and that the Police advised them to go to Civil Court. Learned counsel submits that, when the civil suit is pending before the competent Court, continuation of the present proceedings is mere abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that the Complainant executed registered sale deeds in favour of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his wife, the present case has been lodged against them alleging that they have trespassed into the subject land. It is stated that Respondent No.2 has no legitimate claim over the property. The overt acts alleged against the Petitioners in the report do not prima facie constitute an offence under the SC and ST Act. Learned counsel further submits that, even if the case of the prosecution is entirely considered, since the dispute is of civil nature which was coloured as criminal prosecution, continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioners, is highly untenable. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings. 6. Learned counsel further submits that, even if the case of the prosecution is entirely considered, since the dispute is of civil nature which was coloured as criminal prosecution, continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioners, is highly untenable. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings. 6. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners and truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during investigation. Since there is prima facie case against the Petitioners, the proceedings against them cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of 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 Petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.462 of 2021 on the file of Dharmajigudem Police Station, West Godavari 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. 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 instant case, admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.51 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi has been filed by Respondent No.2 herein seeking permanent injunction with regard to the subject property and the same is pending. Further, no temporary injunction has been granted therein, in favour of Respondent No.2 and the matter is coming up for arguments before the trial Court. Further, no temporary injunction has been granted therein, in favour of Respondent No.2 and the matter is coming up for arguments before the trial Court. Further, in support of their contention, the Petitioners filed copies of Registered Sale Deed dated 12.07.2005 to an extent of Ac.0-53 cents, Registered Sale Deed dated 12.04.2005 to an extent of Ac.0-50 cents, Registered Sale Deed dated 24.11.2001 to an extent of Ac.0-21 cents and statement of encumbrance dated 02.09.2021 in favour of the Petitioners. 10. It is clear from the above discussion that there is a civil dispute between the parties with regard to the subject property and in view of the pendency of the said suit which was filed for permanent injunction, the possession over the subject property is yet to be decided. Since there is a cloud over the possession of the subject property, the question of criminal trespass and the consequential offences by the Petitioners, 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. 11. 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) 12. 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) 12. In the light of the fact that the civil suit is pending between the parties and as the copies of the sale deeds filed before this Court would prima facie show that the Complainant having sold the property, filed a criminal case against the Petitioners. As such, the provision under Section 3 (2) (va) which penalizes the commission of any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of SC ST or such property belongs to such member, shall be punished with the punishment specified under the IPC for such offences, also doesn’t prima facie attract. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioners, who alleged to have been purchased the property from the Complainant under registered sale deeds in different spells including the subject property, is an abuse of process of law. 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 Petitioners. 13. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.462 of 2021 on the file of Dharmajigudem Police Station, West Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(2) (va) SC and ST (PoA) Act. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed its view touching the merits of the case about the right and title over the subject matter. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.