ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.669 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile, Mahabubnagar District, for the offences punishable under Sections 353 , 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 18.09.2019 stating that the villagers of Peddamungalched have given complaint to the District Collector for showing the footpath in Sy.No.145 in their village during the Prajavani on 05.08.2019 and the District Collector visited the Addakal Mandal on 12.09.2019 and instructed him to solve the issue. Accordingly, the Mandal Surveyor issued notices to petitioner No.1 and pattadars of Sy.No.145 to attend on 17.09.2019 for demarcation of footpath, but the said persons did not attend. However, the Mandal Surveyor conducted panchanama and instructed pattadars not to disturb the agriculture on field till the yield of the crop. On 17.09.2019, petitioner No.1 telephoned him and abused in filthy language and threatened. On the next day, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 came to his office and alleged that he and his staff was working under the instructions of the ZPTC and some other political leaders by taking bribe from them and also alleged that they done baseless demarcation in their land and attempted to damage the furniture in the office and obstructed them in discharging their official duties and also warned VRO and Surveyor that they will beat them when they visit their village. He instructed petitioner No.1 and others to submit any representation they wished to make, but they did not listen to him. Basing on the said complaint, Crime No.52 of 2019 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 , 504 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, filed a final report before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile, Mahabubnagar, and the same was taken cognizance and numbered as C.C. No.669 of 2019. 3. Heard Ms. Nagaraju Chaitanya Vongavolu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. 3. Heard Ms. Nagaraju Chaitanya Vongavolu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the ingredients of Sections 353 , 504 and 506 of the IPC do not attract. Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the owners of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.32 gts. in Sy.No.145 of Eddamunagalched Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Petitioner No.1 approached the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, and submitted application for conducting survey and demarcation of the pathway in the above said land. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the Mandal Surveyor issued notice to the pattadars in Sy.No.145 to attend enquiry on 17.09.2019, but no pattadar has appeared. In the absence of pattadars, the Mandal Surveyor conducted demarcation. 4.2. It is alleged that on 17.09.2019, petitioner No.1 telephoned respondent No.2 and abused him in filthy language and threatened and it is further alleged that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 entered into the office of respondent No.2 on 18.09.2019 unlawfully and attempted to damage the furniture, though they have not committed any such act. The nature of the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature, especially petitioner No.1 had already approached this Court and filed W.P.No.293 of 2020 questioning the action of the official respondent Nos.3 to 6 in not taking action against respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 13 in the said writ petition. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.5 to 11 either in the complaint or in the charge sheet and they were falsely implicated as an accused. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have not used any criminal force or assaulted respondent No.2. In respect of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. and another , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 7] 5. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5.1. 4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have not used any criminal force or assaulted respondent No.2. In respect of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P. and another , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 7] 5. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5.1. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against petitioner Nos.1 to 4 entered into the office and they obstructed the official duties of respondent No.2 and his staff. The Investigating Officer after recording the statements of witnesses filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance. Whether the petitioners have committed the offence or not has to be revealed after a full-fledged trial, and at this stage, they are not entitled to seek quashing of C.C. basing upon the grounds which were pleaded before the Court. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Analysis: 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are claiming that they are owners of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2.32 gts. in Sy.No.145 situated at Eddamunagalched Village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The record further reveals that petitioner No.1 had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.293 of 2020 seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.3 and 6 in the said writ petition in not taking any action against respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 13 and further without considering the report of respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 and 7 to 13 again mark out in laying the road in Sy.No.145 without considering the endorsement of respondent No.2 on the representation dated 08.07.2019 and the said writ petition is pending. 7. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 18.09.2019 stating that upon his instructions, the Mandal Surveyor had issued notices to the pattadars of Sy.No.145 to conduct survey and demarcate the pathway on 17.09.2019. The pattadars have not attended the survey. However, the Mandal Surveyor has demarcated the footpath in the said land and conducted panchanama. 7. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 18.09.2019 stating that upon his instructions, the Mandal Surveyor had issued notices to the pattadars of Sy.No.145 to conduct survey and demarcate the pathway on 17.09.2019. The pattadars have not attended the survey. However, the Mandal Surveyor has demarcated the footpath in the said land and conducted panchanama. Even according to the complaint, on 17.09.2019, petitioner No.1 abused respondent No.2 in filthy language and threatened him over a telephone conversation and subsequently on 18.09.2019, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 entered into the office of respondent No.2 and alleged that the staff of respondent No.2 are working as per the instructions of the ZPTC and other political leaders by taking bribe from them and they have also alleged that they have done baseless demarcation in their land and attempted to damage the furniture in the office, while obstructing them to discharge their official duties and they also warned VRO and surveyor that they will beat them up if they visit their village. However, upon examining the complaint and charge sheet, it does not disclose any ingredient of criminal force or assault to attract the offence under Section 353 of the IPC, except making bold statements that the petitioners entered into the office and attempted to damage the furniture, without disclosing in what manner the officials were obstructed or attacked. 8. In B.N. John supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that to attract the provisions of Section 353 IPC, there must be a clear allegation of use of criminal force or assault on a public servant while performing his official duties or to deter him from discharging such duties. A mere act of obstruction or verbal altercation does not amount to an offence under Section 353 IPC. The Court further clarified that such conduct, at the most, may constitute an offence under Section 186 IPC, which deals with simple obstruction of a public servant in the discharge of his duties and is a lesser, non-cognizable offence. In that case, since the FIR merely stated that the accused and others had “created disturbance” without any reference to physical attack or use of force, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC were not satisfied and the FIR could not be sustained for that offence. In that case, since the FIR merely stated that the accused and others had “created disturbance” without any reference to physical attack or use of force, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC were not satisfied and the FIR could not be sustained for that offence. In the present case, applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet also do not disclose any act of assault or use of criminal force by the petitioners against the officials. The complaint only states that the petitioners entered the office, attempted to damage furniture, and obstructed the officials, without specifying any physical act of violence or attack and the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 353 IPC are absent. 9. Insofar as the other offences levelled against the petitioners under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are concerned, there are no specific allegations that they intentionally insulted or provoked a breach of peace, or that they threatened any person with injury to body, reputation, or property. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the necessary ingredients to constitute the above said offences are lacking. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] wherein the Court illustratively catalogued the categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations prima facie do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Guided by these principles, and considering that the allegations in the present case do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. 11. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 11. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 11 for the offences under Sections 353 , 504 and 506 of the IPC in C.C.No.669 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile, Mahabubnagar District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.