ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the 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.502 of 2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code[for short ‘IPC’] r/w 3(1)(g)(r)(s)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 [for short ‘Act’]. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: a. On 13.06.2019, the Complainant purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents from the Accused in R.S.No.2/2 for a consideration of Rs.6,40,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.4764/2019. The Complainant laid fencing to the said land and went to Hyderabad. Subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the Accused was using his property. b. As such, the Complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction and the Hon’ble Court passed an interim injunction order in O.S.No.87 of 2020 in I.A.No.186 of 2020. c. Inspite of the order of interim injunction, Accused entered into the land of the Complainant by breaking open the lock, restrained the Complainant from entering into his land and also abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste and threatened with dire consequences. d. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Police against the Accused, which was registered as a case in Crime No.502 of 2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City for the alleged offences. Grounds Sought for Quashment: 3. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds: a. In the case on hand, the alleged dispute is with regard to the property, which is the subject matter in the civil suits i.e., O.S.No.87 of 2020 and O.S.No.22 of 2021 filed by Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner. b. The complaint is also silent as to the date and time of the alleged incident and except bald allegations, there are no specific allegations raised against the Petitioner. c. The complaint is merely abuse of process of law and the same is filed to make the Petitioner to come to the terms and conditions of the Complainant. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. c. The complaint is merely abuse of process of law and the same is filed to make the Petitioner to come to the terms and conditions of the Complainant. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. None represented for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Complainant purchased the land from the Petitioner under a registered sale deed and he laid a fencing to the said land and left for Hyderabad. It is submitted that, subsequently, the Complainant came to know that the Accused has been using the said property. As such, the Complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.87 of 2020 for permanent injunction and obtained an interim injunction. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the dispute between the parties is relating to property, which is subject matter of the civil suit filed by Respondent No.2 in O.S.87 of 2020 as well as the Petitioner in O.S.No.22 of 2021. It is submitted that, except the bald allegations, the complaint does not disclose any date and time of the alleged incident. As such, the question of commission of alleged offences by the Petitioner, does not arise. Hence, he prayed for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Petitioner obtained stay of all further proceedings pursuant to registration of the crime in this matter. It is submitted that there are ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 341, 427 and 506 of the IPC. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further would submit that Court may direct the investigating officer to complete the investigation since they obtained stay of all the proceedings at the threshold. 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 the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime No.502 of 2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City? Determination by the Court 8. 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 the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime No.502 of 2021 on the file of the Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada 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. In the present case, it is alleged that on 13.06.2019 the Complainant purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents from the Accused in R.S.No.2/2 for a consideration of Rs.6,40,000/- under a Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.4764/2019, laid fencing to the said land and went to Hyderabad. As seen from the record, the allegations attributed against the Petitioner are that, having sold the property to the Complainant under a Registered Sale Deed, the Petitioner entered into the subject property by breaking open the lock. When the Complainant questioned the same, the Petitioner abused him by touching his caste and threatened with dire consequences. 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. When the Complainant questioned the same, the Petitioner abused him by touching his caste and threatened with dire consequences. 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 6. We will now, carefully scan the application filed by the respondent herein which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C to consider whether the appellant is justified in taking up the contention that the allegations raised thereunder did not contain the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences or whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case for investigation. In that regard it is worthwhile to take note of the fact that the respondent herein has alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. We will refer to the ingredient to constitute such offences to consider the said question.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the instant case, as per the interim order of this Court, dated 15.11.2021, investigation in this case has been stalled at the threshold. Without investigation, the truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be revealed. As such, this is not a proper stage to consider the genuineness of the said allegations. The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot be decided based on presumptions and assumptions. In a case of this nature, the Police must be permitted to complete the investigation and the Courts cannot thwart the investigation at the nascent stage. This Court is not relying on the merits of the case at this stage. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations cannot be decided at the threshold. Needless to say that this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.