ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in laying charge sheet dated 21.05.2014 arising out of FIR No.157 of 2013 on the file of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapur District and now on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 7th respondent herein said to have given a complaint to the police dated 18.12.2012 alleging that the 1st petitioner along with his wife and his daughter, K. Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Kamalamma attacked them on the night of 16.12.2012 at 9.15 p.m. and abused them in their caste name. Thereafter, the 7th respondent has filed a writ petition in WP No.9361 of 2013 before this Court claiming that the police have not registered the case. Though the 1st petitioner, Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Kamalamma are parties to the writ petition, this Court disposed of the same at the admission stage directing the police to register the crime enquire into the matter and file a final report. Accordingly the police registered a case in FIR No.157/2013 on 28.10.2013 under Sections 447, 323, 354 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC, ST (POA) Act 1989. In fact the Ramanjaneyulu sent all the papers to the Investigating Officer by RPAD along with a petition under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. as already stated the 1st petitioner has personally handed over to the 6th respondent a set of papers to him on 8.1.2014 though the 1stpetitioner has not asked any receipt for the same. The 1st petitioner has also given a representation on 6.1.2014 to the DIG, Rayalaseema Division with all documents. The police officer, who investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet in a casual and routine manner without reference to the facts of the case and without looking of the genesis of the dispute made those allegations. Further the whole dispute is a civil dispute which clearly indicates that the 5th accused and his brother were held to be the owners of the property. The very claim of the petitioner is not the property in dispute. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. Further the whole dispute is a civil dispute which clearly indicates that the 5th accused and his brother were held to be the owners of the property. The very claim of the petitioner is not the property in dispute. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. While denying the allegations made in the petition contended that the petitioners have given a representation to the respondent No.2 is true. The then Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram was endorsed the same to the 4threspondent and he submitted his report as civil in nature. But with regard to the allegations levelled by the 7th respondent that the petitioners and 2 others abused her in filthy language by touching her caste and the evidence collected by the LO categorically established that the offence took place and hence after coming to the conclusion that prima facie case is established against het accused, charge sheet is filed before the JFCM, Hindupur and the Court was taken the case on file and petitioners are having every opportunity to avail all remedies before the concerned jurisdictional Court and without availing the remedies they approached this Court with untenable allegations and the same has to be decided during the trial only and not at this stage. Hence the writ petition deserves no consideration and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 4. The 7th and 8th respondents have also filed their counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the petition. It is contended that all the accused in the crime are interrelated. All of them created terror in the minds of the defacto complainant and her family members for no fault of them. The petitioners and other accused made all their attempt to dispossess the defacto complainant and her family from possession and in that process used filthy language in the caste name and got involved in the criminal case. Thus the respondents have approached the police by filing the criminal complaint. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer examined all the witnesses in the case along with these respondents came to a conclusion that the writ petitioners and the other accused are guilty of the offences alleged against them and that they are liable to be prosecuted. 5. Thus the respondents have approached the police by filing the criminal complaint. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer examined all the witnesses in the case along with these respondents came to a conclusion that the writ petitioners and the other accused are guilty of the offences alleged against them and that they are liable to be prosecuted. 5. This Court, vide order, dated 04.05.2017, has granted stay of all further proceedings for a period of four weeks and thereafter it was extended from time to time. 6. Heard Sri K. Raja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petition, contended that, after coming to know about the registration of the crime, the 1st petitioner submitted a detailed report to the superior officers about the dispute with regard to the property, the genesis of the dispute and other particulars with all the relevant papers. Without considering any of these things the police recorded the statements of the complainant her family members apart from some third parties who are also interested in the properties some of them also purchased the same property similarly. He further submits that, without collecting the documents and the court orders which were specifically mentioned and presented along with representation, the police filed charge sheet as they are scared orders of this Court as well as the complainant though they are aware of civil disputes, injunction orders ect., In fact by virtue of police protection order, the police officers are to protect the property for which the trial Court granted injunction as well as police aid which became final. He further submits that the 6th respondent who is an IAS officer supervising the investigation did not discharge his duty truthfully and honestly. Infact each and every person in the concerned police station are aware of the property dispute in view of the court litigation and police aid granted by the Court at Hindupur. Learned counsel further submits that, with regard to Section 3(i)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, wrongfully dispossess a member of a SC or a ST from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water. Learned counsel further submits that, with regard to Section 3(i)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, wrongfully dispossess a member of a SC or a ST from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water. The said section contemplates dispossession of a member of SC or ST is dispossessed from his land wrongfully the said section applies. But as stated earlier, the complainant family are trying to grab the property of Ramanjaneyulu and his brother claiming under a non-existing title and further their claim being rejected by the competent civil courts the said section does not apply and Section 447 IPC applies to them as they are being the encroachers in violation of the orders of this Court. Similarly question of wrongful dispossession of a member of SC or ST from his land or premises does not arise. The question of other offences 323 and 354 are not attracted. He mainly contended that the police officer who investigated into the crime and filed the charge sheet in a casual and routine manner without reference to the facts of the case without looking of the nemesis of the dispute made those allegations. He further submits that the whole investigation is an atrocious investigation having fully known the facts and the Court orders implicated the petitioners for the reasons best known to the investigating officer as well as the 5th respondent. In fact earlier Investigating Officer clearly stated that the petitioners are not at all involved in the alleged offence. Viewed from any angle, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, wherein the Apex Court held that “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. 8. 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that, in this case, the investigation completed and filed charge sheet on 30.09.2014 and case was taken on file by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hindupur vide PRC No.32/2014, dated 23.12.2014. 9. To support his contentions, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance on a catena of decisions reported in : (i). In a case of V. Ravi Kumar versus State represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem, Tamil Nadu and others, (2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 568, wherein it was held that “where the accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking inherent jurisdiction ofo the High Court, it is wholly impermissible for the High Court to enter into the factual arena to adjudge the correctness of the allegations in the complaint. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court, inter alia, in State of Punjab v Subhash Kumar, (1992) 4 SCC 15 and Janata Dal v. H.S Chodhary, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. In another case reported in Lalmuni Devi (Smt) versus State of Bihar and others, (2001) 2 SCC 17 , wherein it was held that : On the other hand, Mr. Singh submitted that the alleged acts have made out no case for taking cognizance. He submitted that at the highest the remedy would lie in a Civil Court only. He relied upon the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Mr. K. Ramakrishna & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in JT 2000 (Supp.1) SC 53, In these cases it is held that inherent powers can be exercised to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure ends of justice. It has been held that where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute the alleged offence or where the offence is not disclosed in the complaint or the FIR the frivolous criminal litigation could be quashed. There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. There could be no dispute to the proposition that if the complaint does not make out an offence it can be quashed. However, it is also settled law that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained. In this case, on the facts, it cannot be stated, at this prima facie stage, that this is a frivolous complaint. The High Court does not state that on facts no offence is made out. If that be so, then merely on the ground that it was a civil wrong the criminal prosecution could not have been quashed. In our view, the Order of the High Court cannot be maintained and is accordingly set aside. The trial Court to proceed with the Complaint in accordance with law. The Appeal is allowed. There will, however, be no Order as to costs. (ii). In a case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 324 , wherein it was held that: As far as this aspect is concerned, this Court notices that the FIR need not be an encyclopedia of all the facts and circumstances on which the prosecution relies. The main purpose of the FIR is to enable a police officer to satisfy himself as to whether commission of cognizable offences is indicated so that further investigation can be undertaken by him. The purpose of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and it is not customary to mention every minute detail of the prosecution case in the FIR. FIR is never treated as a substantive piece of evidence and has a limited use, i.e., it can be used for the corroborating or contradicting the maker of it. Law requires FIR to contain basic prosecution case and not minute details. The law developed on the subject is that even if an accused is not named in the FIR he can be held guilty if prosecution leads reliable and satisfactory evidence which proves his participation in crime. Similarly, the witnesses whose names are not mentioned in the FIR but examined during the course of trial can be relied upon for the purpose of basing conviction against the accused. Similarly, the witnesses whose names are not mentioned in the FIR but examined during the course of trial can be relied upon for the purpose of basing conviction against the accused. Non-mentioning of motive in the FIR cannot be regarded as omission to state important and material fact. As a principle, it has been ruled by this Court that omission to give details in the FIR as to manner in which weapon was used by accused is not material omission amounting to contradiction. Further, this is a case wherein FIR was filed by a rustic man and, therefore, non-mentioning of motive in the FIR cannot be attached much importance. (i) In a case of J.P Sharma versus Vinod Kumar Jain and others, (1986) 3 SCC 67 , wherein it was held that “If prima facie offences made out on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint without going into truth or otherwise of the allegations, High Court cannot exercise its power under Section 482. (iii). In another case reported in Ghanshaym Sharma versus Surendra Kumar Sharma and others, (2014) 13 SCC 401 , wherein the Apex Court held that: Whether the respondents are guilty under Section 379 IPC or not is a matter of evidence. The fact that the police chose to file a charge sheet under Section 406 and 420 IPC is not conclusive regarding the offences for which the respondents-accused are to be tried. The trial Court can always frame an appropriate charge if there is sufficient material from the report of the police available before it. In case where the material is insufficient to frame a charge, the trial Court may either discharge the accused or may direct further investigation in the matter. 10. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, the petitioners herein are A1 to A3 in Crime No.157 of 2013. The charge sheet filed after investigation is questioned by the petitioners on the ground that already the issue relating to the land in question is subject matter of civil suits in O.S No.82 of 2011 and 33 of 2012 before the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, wherein injunction and police aid were granted to the petitioners after contests. The charge sheet filed after investigation is questioned by the petitioners on the ground that already the issue relating to the land in question is subject matter of civil suits in O.S No.82 of 2011 and 33 of 2012 before the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, wherein injunction and police aid were granted to the petitioners after contests. It is the contention of the petitioners that earlier the same complaint was enquired into and was reported by the Inspector of Police, Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapuram, under report dated 06.01.2013 that the complaint is baseless with false allegations and there is no truth in the allegations levelled. It is also the contention of the petitioners that there is another report dated 28.10.2013 where also same conclusion was reached. However, the present charge sheet came to be filed by successors Station House Officer without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that every provision of Indian Penal Code is to be read subject to exceptions as per Section 6. Under Section 97 of IPC every person has a right of private defense of property, which reads as under: 97 – Right of private defence of the body and of property : Every person has a right subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend, .. Firstly : His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; Secondly : The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. 12. As seen from the reply to the enquiry report on the representation submitted by one A Lakshmi Bai, it is observed, as under: “….on enquiry It came to light that the respondents Thimmappa, his wife Sarojamma and his daughter Niharika are residing in Bangalore. The sald Niharika is studying M.B.B.S final year in M.S. Ramalah Medical College at Bangalore. They did not committed offence as alleged by the petitioner in her petition that the above mentioned persons along with respondent Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Kamalamma assaulted, insulted her in a public place by naming her caste. The sald Niharika is studying M.B.B.S final year in M.S. Ramalah Medical College at Bangalore. They did not committed offence as alleged by the petitioner in her petition that the above mentioned persons along with respondent Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Kamalamma assaulted, insulted her in a public place by naming her caste. It is further submitted that the petitioner never approached me on 18.12.12, as alleged by her in her petitioner and never preferred any complaint about the alleged incident in Hindupur I town Police Station. My discreet enquiries reveals that as the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Hindupur was pleased to grant interim injunction In favour of respondent Ramanjaneyulu and also granting police aid on 20-08-2012, became an eye soar to the petitioner and her family members. Further it is respectfully submitted that, the said Eswaraiah, the original land owner of the disputed site got property disputes with the respondents bore grudge against them and instigating the petitioner to claim the property in S.No.406-2 which was already delivered possession by him to Ramanjaneyulu and his brothers. Further the petitioner's son Manohar Naik filed a suite in OS.No. 33/2012 and the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the said Manohar Naik son of the petitioner seeking temporary injunction. As such the relentless efforts made by the petitioner and her family members to possess right over the disputed house sitebecame full advantage of the caste with intent to create troubles to the respondent Ramanjineyulu and others the petitioner has submits this petition with all baseless, false and frivolous allegations and there is no lota of truth in the allegations leveled by her in her representation. Hence, as no such Incident took place as alleged by the petitioner in her petition on 18-12-2012 no case is registered and submitted the report for kind perusal of the officer and Issue necessary instructions in this regard.” 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that, the whole investigation is an atrocious investigation having fully known about the facts and the court orders implicated the petitioners for the reasons best known to the investigating officer as well as the 5th respondent. Moreover it is also observed that earlier the investigation officer clearly stated that the petitioners are not at all involved in the alleged offence. 14. Moreover it is also observed that earlier the investigation officer clearly stated that the petitioners are not at all involved in the alleged offence. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court feels that, whatever the contentions raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into by this Court by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners, so advised, they may raise their contentions before the trial Court, and those contentions may be decided by the trial Court after full pledged trial only. 15. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.