ORDER : (V. SUJATHA, J.) These Criminal Petitions are filed by the same petitioners but with a different prayer which can be decided by way of a common order. Hence I feel it appropriate to decide both the cases by way of this common order. 2. Crl.P.No.3167 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the complaint in C.C.No.567 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Crl.P.No.3173 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the complaint in C.C.No.684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in both the criminal petitions, the 2 nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. On 14.12.2017, the 2 nd respondent has filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Atchutapuram Police Station stating that along with her husband, she purchased a land to an extent of Acs.3.94 cents in S.No.6/1A, 6/1B, 6/1E, 6/1F, 6/1L, 6/1K, 6/1I, 6/1J, 6/1G, 6/1M, 6/1N, 6/2 situated at Kondakarla village from Kandregula Ramanamma and others and another extent of Acs.3.94 cents from K. Prakash brothers, G. Ramanaji and others. The 2 nd respondent has been in the possession of the said land and accordingly, the Tahsildar has issued pattadar pass books in favour of the 2 nd respondent. 5. While so on 13.12.2017, when the 2 nd respondent was cleaning her land for constructing a compound wall, the petitioners herein along with others visited the site and obstructed the works being performed and have threatened everyone with dire consequences. They have also demanded money for doing work in the subject property. The petitioners are alleged to have stated that they would not permit the 2 nd respondent to do the work. Stating thus, the 2 nd respondent has requested the police to initiate action against the petitioners, upon receipt of which the police have registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 506 read with 34 of IPC. After due investigation, the Police have also filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.3173 of 2019. 6. After due investigation, the Police have also filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.3173 of 2019. 6. On 02.03.2018, the 2 nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Atchutapuram Police Station stating that she is a resident of Kakinada and owns a land to an extent of Acs.4.00 cents in S.Nos.6/1a, 1/b, 1/e, 1/g, 1/f in Kondakarla Village in which the 2 nd respondent has constructed a compound wall and is running Sri Sai Venkata Maruthi Sheep Farm. 7. While so, on the night of 13.02.2018, the petitioners herein, along with their men are alleged to have entered the land of the 2 nd respondent by demolishing the compound wall and the said incident was brought to the notice by one Bhimisetty Ramu. When the 2 nd respondent has visited the site, she identified that the compound wall to a length of 100 meters partly demolished, which is valued Rs.3,00,000/-. Stating thus, the 2 nd respondent has requested the police to initiate action against the petitioners, upon receipt of which the police have registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC. After due investigation, the Police have also filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.567 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.3167 of 2019. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the allegations levelled against the petitioners and has stated that the 2 nd petitioner herein has purchased a land to an extent of Acs.2.40 cents which is a Zeroyiti dry land from one late Kandregula Bapu Naidu along with his wife Kandregula Ramanamma and seven others on07.09.2015 for Rs.28,20,000/-. As such, the petitioner No.2 has obtained possessory agreement of sale. Since then, the petitioner No.2 is in possession of the subject land. Thereafter, when the 2 nd petitioner demanded late Bapu Naidu and his wife to execute a regular registered sale deed, they have postponed the same, during which period the said Bapunaidu passed away. Thereafter, though the 2 nd respondent has demanded the wife of Mr. Since then, the petitioner No.2 is in possession of the subject land. Thereafter, when the 2 nd petitioner demanded late Bapu Naidu and his wife to execute a regular registered sale deed, they have postponed the same, during which period the said Bapunaidu passed away. Thereafter, though the 2 nd respondent has demanded the wife of Mr. Bapu Naidu and others to execute the regular sale deed, they did not come forward. On the other hand, when they tried to interfere with the possession of the 2 nd petitioner over the said land she filed O.S.No.77 of 2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, seeking permanent injunction in spite of which the2 nd respondent and her husband tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, as such, the 2 nd petitioner has submitted a complaint to the police on 09.07.2016 which was registered as crime No.112 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The vendors along with the 2 nd respondent have again tried to trespass into the petitioner’s property on 13.12.2017, aggrieved by which the 2 nd petitioner has again filed a complaint which was registered as Crime No.211 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC. Despite the suit for injunction filed by the petitioner No.2, as the vendors along with others have highhandedly trespassed into the petitioner’s land, the 2 nd petitioner sought permission of the court below to withdraw O.S.No.77 of 2016 and has filed O.S.No.311 of 2018 before VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 9. Pending the same, the Police, without even verifying about the pendency of the cases against the 2 nd respondent has registered the present crimes against the petitioners without even applying their mind. Though the petitioners have contended before the police regarding the suit they have filed, the present false cases were foisted against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that when the petitioners are alleged to have demolished the compound wall in the subject land on 13.02.2018, the 2 nd respondent has submitted the complaint on 02.03.2018 which in fact is almost after a period of three weeks and the reason for the said delay is unexplained. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that when the petitioners are alleged to have demolished the compound wall in the subject land on 13.02.2018, the 2 nd respondent has submitted the complaint on 02.03.2018 which in fact is almost after a period of three weeks and the reason for the said delay is unexplained. In order to overcome the suit filed by the 2 nd petitioner, the 2 nd respondent has filed the present complaints only to take vengeance and to pressurize the petitioners herein. As such, both the petitions need to be allowed and the impugned charge sheets are liable to be quashed. 10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 447, 341, 506, 427 read with 34 of IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions. 11. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.Nos567 and 684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 12. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 13. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:In “ R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , [1 AIR 1960 SC 866 ] ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 14. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 . It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “ Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar , [ AIR 1990 SC 494 ] ” 15. In “ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , [ 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (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 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. (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. 16. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 17. The facts of the present petitions are not in dispute. The 2 nd petitioner, herein, purchased a plot of land measuring Acs. 2.40 cents, which is a Zeroyiti dry land, from late Kandregula Bapu Naidu, along with his wife Kandregula Ramanamma and seven others, on 07.09.2015, for a consideration of Rs.28,20,000/-. Since that date, the 2 nd petitioner has been in uninterrupted possession of the said land. Subsequently, when the 2 nd petitioner sought for a regular registered sale deed their vendors have postponed the matter. Unfortunately, during this period, Bapu Naidu passed away. Despite this, the 2 nd petitioner made several attempts to compel his wife and the other co-owners to execute the sale deed, but they failed to comply. Thereafter, when the vendors attempted to interfere with the 2 nd petitioner's possession of the land, the 2 nd petitioner filed a suit vide O.S. No. 77 of 2016 before the Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. However, despite the suit, the 2 nd respondent and her husband continued to try and interfere with the petitioner's possession. Thereafter, when the vendors attempted to interfere with the 2 nd petitioner's possession of the land, the 2 nd petitioner filed a suit vide O.S. No. 77 of 2016 before the Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. However, despite the suit, the 2 nd respondent and her husband continued to try and interfere with the petitioner's possession. As a result, the 2 nd petitioner filed a police complaint on 09.07.2016, which led to the registration of Crime No. 112 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Furthermore, on 13.12.2017, when the vendors, along with the 2 nd respondent, attempted to trespass onto the petitioner's property once again, the 2 nd petitioner filed another complaint, resulting in the registration of Crime No. 211 of 2017 for offences under Sections 447, 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Despite the pending suit for injunction, the vendors, along with others, continued to trespass on the petitioner's land. Consequently, the 2 nd petitioner sought permission from the court to withdraw O.S. No. 77 of 2016 and filed a fresh suit vide O.S. No. 311 of 2018, before the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 18. While the case was still pending, the police, without acknowledging the ongoing litigation, registered the present cases against the petitioners, failing to consider the pendency of the suits. Allegedly, despite the petitioners informing the police about the ongoing legal proceedings, the false cases were registered against them. It appears that in an attempt to circumvent the suit filed by the 2 nd petitioner, the 2 nd respondent has filed these complaints out of vengeance and to exert undue pressure on the petitioners. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court, time and again has recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement in the civil dispute. In the case of G. SagarSuri and Another V. State of U.P. and others , (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 INSC 34 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In the case of G. SagarSuri and Another V. State of U.P. and others , (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 INSC 34 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Even in the present case, it appears that the 2 nd respondent has filed the present cases in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioners herein and to pressurize the petitioners. As continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners may amount to the abuse of the process of the court and as the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, this Court feels that the charge sheets challenged in both the petitions are liable to be quashed. However, this will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the civil court passes a decree in favour of the2 nd respondent herein. 20. In view of the above detailed discussion, these criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.567 and 684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District pending against the petitioners herein are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.