ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 and is seeking quash of Crime No.217 of 2024 on the file of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District registered for alleged offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 323, 324, 341, 406, 427, 447 of IPC. 2. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a case that is purely civil in nature and has been conveniently converted into a criminal case. It is submitted that a private complaint was filed, and the complaint was referred to the police for investigation. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 12.07.2024, directed the complaint to be registered at the Station House Officer, Arundalpet Police Station, and to report to the Court after investigation. 3. It is submitted that the private complaint could not have been considered for referral to the police, as the 2 nd respondent did not file the sworn affidavit as is mandatory. 4. It is also submitted that OS.No.598 of 2021 is filed by the 2 nd respondent against the accused No.1 represented by the petitioner herein as defendant No.1 in the suit, apart from two other defendants. It is submitted that similar averments are made in the plaint and the complaint insofar as the allegation relating to the alleged interjecting and obstruction to the passage towards the eastern side of the 2 nd respondent's property is concerned. The alleged obstruction and interjection of the passage is the subject of the civil suit, where a prayer for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the passage is prayed for. 5. It is submitted that, in the criminal complaint the 2 nd respondent has alleged that the petitioner has committed various offences, a complaint was filed initially on 09.08.2021 and again on 21.12.2021 and that the police did not act on the complaints, as such, complaint dated 30.04.2022 was sent to the DGP, DIG and SP of police through registered post. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with others, created a galata on 28.02.2023 and caused damage to the property, and also threatened to withdraw OS.No.598 of 2021. It is alleged that, aggrieved by the inaction of the police, a private complaint was filed. 6. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with others, created a galata on 28.02.2023 and caused damage to the property, and also threatened to withdraw OS.No.598 of 2021. It is alleged that, aggrieved by the inaction of the police, a private complaint was filed. 6. The learned senior counsel submits that on the facts of the case even if the allegations in the complaint are to be taken as true, the dispute relates to the right of pathway and the right of the pathway is a matter of civil dispute and the appropriate remedy for redressing any of those grievances would have to be essentially a civil Court. It is also submitted that a false criminal complaint is filed solely to exert pressure on the petitioner. 7. It is submitted that the complaint is motivated and filed solely to harass the petitioner. The learned senior counsel places reliance on The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant. The affidavit would make the applicant more responsible. Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat , [ (2015) 6 SCC 439 ] . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is to be issued only after the learned Magistrate has applied their mind. Usha Chakraborty and another Vs. State of West Bengal and another, (2023) 15 SCC 135 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a dispute is essentially civil in nature and is given a cloak of a criminal offence. The High Court should not hesitate to quash the case. 8. Sri.Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, submits that the respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner are in possession of two different properties which are adjacent, and there is a common pathway which has formed the genesis for the dispute. 9. It is also submitted that the trial Court, on merits, granted an interim injunction on 15.07.2021, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the passage towards the east, connecting to Brodipet. 10. 9. It is also submitted that the trial Court, on merits, granted an interim injunction on 15.07.2021, restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the passage towards the east, connecting to Brodipet. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioner is arraigned as respondent No.2 and is aware of the injunction that restrains the petitioner and the other defendants of the suit from interfering with the possession of the 2nd respondent over the passage. In such circumstances, the attempt of the petitioner to trespass and cause damage to the property forms the genesis of the complaint. 11. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the cognizance taken order, but instead challenged the registration of FIR. It is submitted that the police are under a statutory obligation to register an FIR after receipt of the complaint from the learned Magistrate. Such action of the police cannot be sought to be quashed. 12. The learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has not raised the ground of non-compliance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivatsava's case with respect to filing of an sworn affidavit is concerned, no such ground was raised and without raising such a ground the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be challenged. 13. The learned senior counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Sita Venkata Ramana Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and two others, CRLP.No.8356 of 2022, decided on 30.10.2023 , held that registration of a crime by the police on the directions of a learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality. The learned Judge also held that without taking a ground in the petition regarding non- compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Priyanka Srivatsava's case, the same cannot be raised at the time of arguments. 14. The learned senior counsel further submits that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. As such, the complaint filed is distinct from the dispute regarding the passage. 15. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed OS.No.426 of 2021 against third parties and sought an injunction for schedule A, B, C, D, E, F and G properties. 15. It is submitted that the petitioner also filed OS.No.426 of 2021 against third parties and sought an injunction for schedule A, B, C, D, E, F and G properties. It is submitted that the dispute is not about the schedule of properties for which the petitioner sought an injunction. The dispute is with regard to the obstruction caused by the petitioner over the 40 feet common passage. 16. Heard the learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents, and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state. 17. The short point for consideration is whether the complaint filed against the petitioner deserves to be quashed on the grounds raised for seeking the relief. 18. Admittedly, the civil dispute is pending before the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur vide OS.No.598 of 2021, and is pending disposal. The property schedule in the suit would show a 40-foot internal road through the Becker compound's main gate, leading to Amaravati Road. 19. It is not in dispute that the learned Junior Civil Judge had granted an injunction on 15.07.2021, and the respondents therein are under an obligation to honour the order of the Court and not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of passage towards the east connecting to Brodipet. 20. It is also not in dispute that the learned Junior Civil Judge granted an injunction in favour of the petitioner over schedule A, B, C, D, E, F and G properties vide order dated 14.05.2021. 21. A complaint alleging trespass onto the lease property/passage of the complainants, and causing damage to the complainants' property by removing and demolishing the fencing was initially made on 09.08.2021. It is also alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had placed zinc sheets with iron frames on the eastern side and arranged a gate, which they have locked, resulting in the prevention of the complainant from accessing the said gate for ingress and egress. When this was questioned, it is alleged that the complainants were pressurized to withdraw OS.No. 598 of 2021 and to relinquish the eastern side passage. The same was submitted along with photographs to the Station House Officer on 20.12.2021. The police denied extending any aid as the matter was pending before the Civil Court. 22. When this was questioned, it is alleged that the complainants were pressurized to withdraw OS.No. 598 of 2021 and to relinquish the eastern side passage. The same was submitted along with photographs to the Station House Officer on 20.12.2021. The police denied extending any aid as the matter was pending before the Civil Court. 22. This Court directed the police not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner vide an interim order dated 24.01.2025. The complaint as filed is not confined to the overlap of a dispute which is pending before a Civil Court. The civil Court had granted an injunction with respect to the 40-foot passage on the eastern side. There could have been no occasion for the petitioner or the other accused to overstep the orders of the Court and cause damage to the property therein. 23. The facts of the case cannot be brushed aside as purely civil in nature. When allegations of offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 323, 324, 341, 406, 427, 447 of IPC are made, it would be prudent for the police to complete the investigation and file a final report/ charge sheet after completion of the investigation. Merely because the civil disputes are pending between the parties, the same cannot entitle one of the parties to the civil dispute to take the law into their hands and resort to the commission of any illegal acts and thereafter take the shelter of pendency of the civil suit and seek quash of the criminal complaint. 24. On these grounds, this Court is of the view that the police ought to be given a free hand to complete the investigation, more so when the complaint states explicitly the presence of independent witnesses who witnessed the alleged illegal acts of the petitioner and others. This is one of such cases that does not deserve the quashing of the FIR at the threshold. The registration of an FIR by the police on the directions of the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with at this stage. 25. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the order of the learned Magistrate directing the police to register an FIR and investigate is not under challenge. The registration of an FIR by the police on the directions of the learned Magistrate cannot be faulted with at this stage. 25. As rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the order of the learned Magistrate directing the police to register an FIR and investigate is not under challenge. Thus, registration of an FIR by the police on the directions of the learned Magistrate cannot be challenged, as the police are duty- bound to register the FIR upon receipt of directions from the learned Magistrate. 26. The complaint as filed cannot be brushed aside as civil in nature. More so, when the respondent has alleged in the complaint that photographic evidence of the alleged excess of the petitioner was placed before the police. The judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the complaint filed by the 2 nd respondent is not in relation to any commercial transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. On the facts of this case, the pendency of civil disputes between the parties is independent of the alleged offences under Sections 109, 120-B, 323, 324, 341, 406, 427, 447 of IPC. As such, the police are required to investigate. 27. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the investigation of the crime registered against the petitioner and others as no grounds are made out which warrant the exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., (528 of BNSS) and quash of Crime No.217 of 2024 on the file of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District. 28. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed, and it is left open for the police to complete the investigation in accordance with the law and file the final report/ charge sheet after completing the investigation. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.