ORDER : 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.2 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.487 of 2020 on the file of Renigunta (U) Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’]. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a. One Sri Raghavadas Bavaji, executed a last Will on 11.02.1949 in favour of one Sri Sukul Ramanadha Sharma, who is the father-in-law of Respondent No.2. Thereafter, said Raghavadas Bavaji died on 17.10.1952. Accused No.1, who is not the legitimate daughter of said Raghavadas Bavaji, without having any right, sold his vast extent of properties to third parties. Accused No.1 also tried to alienate the other properties of said Raghavadas Bavaji by a fabricated Will alleged to have been executed by him in her favour on 16.10.1952. After coming to know the same, Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.454 of 2012 on the file of the Court I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati which was decreed in favour of Respondent No.2 declaring the Will dt.16.10.1952 as void and also by granting injunction restraining Accused No.1 and her son from alienating the properties in favour of third parties. During pendency of the said suit, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 created Registered Sale Deeds dated 23.07.2014 by impersonation as if they were executed by Accused No.1 in their favour. As such, Respondent No.2 herein examined Accused No.1 as D.W.1 in O.S.No.454 of 2012, and during cross examination, Accused No.1 herein deposed that she sold some of their properties during the life time of her husband and subsequently, she has not sold any properties and that no case was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati with regard to their properties and she has not filed any cases at Hyderabad and she does not know the details of the cases. b. The application submitted by Respondent No.2 to the Tahsildar for issuance of Ryotwar patta in their favour, was rejected. b. The application submitted by Respondent No.2 to the Tahsildar for issuance of Ryotwar patta in their favour, was rejected. As such, Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati and the same was allowed on 03.09.2014 directing the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural to issue ryotwari patta in their favour and against the said orders, W.P.No.27679 of 2014 on the file this Court was preferred by Accused No.1, which is contrary to her statement in her cross examination in O.S.No.454 of 2012. c. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 have created the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Accused No.1. Petitioners, who are the scribe and attestors of the alleged sale deeds, by colluding with each other, fabricated the documents. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 4. Grounds Sought for Quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds. a. The allegations made against the Petitioners do not constitute any offence against the Petitioners. b. There are no ingredients of cheating in the complaint to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC against the Petitioners. c. Without getting the admitted and the disputed signatures on the alleged sale deeds determined through a competent Court, Police cannot register a case for the offence under Section 468 IPC. d. Civil disputes are going between the parties in respect of the subject property since long time and having failed to get any favourable orders, Respondent No.2 resorted to the present criminal complaint to pressurize the Petitioners to come to her tunes. e. The execution of the alleged sale deeds was in the year 2014, whereas, the present complaint has been lodged in the year 2020, as such, there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri G.Mahesh, learned counsel representing Sri G.Sudarsana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 would submit that Petitioners have purchased the subject land from Accused No.1 in the year 2014. Heard Sri G.Mahesh, learned counsel representing Sri G.Sudarsana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 would submit that Petitioners have purchased the subject land from Accused No.1 in the year 2014. It is submitted that Accused No.1 is the owner of the subject property by virtue of a Registered Will dated 16.10.1952. The suit in O.S.No.454 of 2012 filed by Respondent No.2 was decreed and against the said decree, Accused Nos.1 and 2 filed A.S.No.117 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and obtained an interim order in I.A.No.424 of 2016 wherein, the operation of the judgment and decree was suspended. Learned counsel would further submit that since the matter is purely of civil nature and is given the colour of criminal offence, the same cannot be continued against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners in the present crime. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.487 of 2020 on the file of Renigunta (U) Police Station, Tirupati Urban? Determination by the Court 8. A keen 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. 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. As can be seen from the above judgment, the first guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face value, if they do not constitute an offence, then the FIR can be quashed. As can be seen from the above judgment, the first guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face value, if they do not constitute an offence, then the FIR can be quashed. On this touchstone, when the complaint allegations are perused, the main allegation is that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 fabricated the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Accused No.1 in their favour with regard to the subject property and have been causing troubles to Respondent No.2. Admittedly civil disputes are pending between the parties. Respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.454 of 2012 on the file of the Court I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and obtained a decreed in her favour by declaring the Will dt.16.10.1952, which was alleged to have been executed by one Raghavadas Bavaji in favour of Accused No.1, as void and also by granting injunction restraining Accused No.1 and her son from alienating the properties in favour of third parties. Against the said decree, Accused No.1 and her son preferred an appeal in A.S.No.117 of 2016 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati and obtained an interim order in I.A.No.424 of 2016 by suspending the operation of the said judgment and decree. 11. It is needless to say that, both parties are claiming title over the subject property. Thus, it is a trite law that a Civil Court alone is competent to adjudicate upon the bonafide dispute of title between the parties. In that view, as the civil disputes are pending for adjudication, wherein, the title over the subject property is an issue, at this stage, it cannot be concluded prima facie that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 have committed the alleged offences. It is a cardinal principle that when the complaint allegations disclose a pure civil dispute and not a criminal offence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. 12. The offences alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 are under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC. For better understanding the said offences are extracted hereunder. “415. 12. The offences alleged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 are under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC. For better understanding the said offences are extracted hereunder. “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 13. A juxtaposing perusal of the allegations leveled against the Petitioners and above Sections of law, would clearly go to show that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 IPC. Further, the right and title of Petitioners over the subject property is always subject to the result of the civil suit. 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. It is pertinent to refer to Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , where 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. It is pertinent to refer to Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , where 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) 14. 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 Petitioners. 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. 15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.487 of 2020 on the file of Renigunta (U) Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.