ORDER : (VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.) 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.1 and 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.833 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali for the offences under Sections 355 , 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code , [for short ‘ IPC ’] 2. The contents of the complaint filed Respondent No.2/Complainant, in brief, are as follows: (i) Respondent No.2 and one Gummalapati Prasad are the practicing Advocates at Kavali. Gummalampati Prasad had reported to the Accused on 24-07-2021 that his grandmother Kamatham Mahalakshamma has a house bearing D.No. 6-8-37, Gayatri Nagar, Kavali and her son by name Kamatham Koteswara Rao, who has been working as ASI in CISF Bangalore Regiment, along with his family had temporarily come down to Kavali due to Corona outbreak at Bangalore, took shelter in the house of his mother Mahalakashamma from September 2020. (ii) That being so, in view of the property disputes, the son of Mahalakshamma used to pressurize her to execute a document in his favour and beat her indiscriminately and put her to starvation mercilessly and had driven her out of the house. (iii) While so, on 12.09.2021 at about 05.30 p.m. said Kamatham Koteswara Rao and his men made a forcible entry into the house of the said Prasad and scolded the mother of the said Gummalampati Venkata Prasad, who is the sister of Koteswara Rao, Mahalakshamma and the father of the said Gummalampati Prasad and had created such an unhealthy and annoying atmosphere in their house premises by raising louder voice, and as a consequence of the same Mahalaskhamma was fell ill on the apprehension that her son will kill her on pretext of taking back her home. (iv) The Complainant and the said Gummalampati Prasad went to the Police Station by 07.00 p.m. on 12.09.2021 and narrated the facts and harassment of said Koteswara Rao to the Police. On that, Accused No.1 made a rude conversation that "how the offence is established for mere entrance of a person in the house of the said Gummalampati Prasad", for which, the Complainant replied that "he trespassed into the house with an evil-intention and that is an offence". On that, Accused No.1 made a rude conversation that "how the offence is established for mere entrance of a person in the house of the said Gummalampati Prasad", for which, the Complainant replied that "he trespassed into the house with an evil-intention and that is an offence". At that juncture the Complainant said that "Sir we are Advocates" for which, Accused No.1 replied in an arrogant manner stating that " what if you're an advocate, show your status in your Courts not here" eventhough the Complainant was explaining the case and was trying to convince Accused No.1, having influenced by said Koteswara Rao, who is also a Police Personnel, snapped his fingers by saying “chalo chaloo … chalo”. When the Complainant questioned his acts, Accused No.1 got irritated and gave sudden provocation by using unhealthy language against the Complainant in the presence of G.Prasad and others. Accused No.1 also behaved inhumanly towards the Complainant and said Prasad insulted them and asked them to sort their remedies at their Courts. By saying so, Accused No.1 caught hold the collar of the Complainant and dragged him to some extent with a direction to go out of the Police Station. (v) When the Complainant tried to convince Accused No.2 and other Staff, who were present there at the time of the alleged incident, Accused No.1 asked them to recourse their remedy at the Courts, by showing his hand towards the door. Accused Nos.1 and 2 degraded the Advocate profession and thereby dishonoured the dignity of the noble profession. Having no other go, the Complainant filed the present compliant before the Court. 3. Heard Sri Ginjupalli Subbarao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.Marella Radha, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 are the Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police of Kavali I Town Police Station and Respondent No.2 is a practicing advocate and Vice President of Kavali Bar Association. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners are concocted only to harass them for not interfering in the civil dispute on their behalf. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner No.2 was not present in the Police Station at the time of the alleged incident. Learned counsel would further submit that the allegations made against the Petitioners are concocted only to harass them for not interfering in the civil dispute on their behalf. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner No.2 was not present in the Police Station at the time of the alleged incident. Learned counsel would further submit that the resolution that no advocate shall appear on behalf of the Petitioners to defend them in the Court, passed by the Kavali Bar Association is depriving the right of the Petitioners to get legal aid. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no allegations in the complaint to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A.S.Mohammed Rafi vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2011) 1 SCC 688 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in the commission of alleged offence. However, learned counsel would submit that the petition may be considered for Accused No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 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.1 and 2 in C.C.No.833 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali? Determination by the Court 8. A bare 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. 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. The present private complaint has been lodged against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 by Respondent No.2 alleging that on 12.09.2021 when Respondent No.2 and his associate, one G.Prasad went to Kavali I Town Police Station to give a report about the high handed acts of one K.Koteswara Rao, who was working as ASI in CISG Bengalore Regiment, and who is the maternal uncle of G.Prasad with regard to the ill-treatment of the grandmother of G.Prasad namely Kamatham Mahalakshmamma, being influenced by said K.Koteswara Rao, Petitioner/Accused No.1 behaved inhumanly towards Respondent No.2 and said G.Prasad asking them to sort their remedies at the Courts and also caught hold the collar of the shirt of Respondent No.2 and dragged to some extent with a direction to go out of the Police Station. Petitioner/Accused No.2 supported the version of Accused No.1. 10. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would clearly show that, the present complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.2 on 16.09.2021. Whereas, the wife of said K.Koteswara Rao, on 18.09.2021, lodged a complaint against said G.Prasad and Respondent No.2 herein which was registered as a case in Crime No.113 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 290, 341 and 506 read with 34 IPC . Further, on 07.12.2021 K.Koteswara Rao also lodged a complaint against G.Prasad and Respondent No.2 herein which was registered as a case in Crime No.150 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 347, 448 and 323 read with 34 IPC on the file of Kavali I Town Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. 11. For ready reference, Sections 355 , 120A punishable under Section 120B and 503 punishable under 506 IPC are extracted hereunder: “ 355. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation . 11. For ready reference, Sections 355 , 120A punishable under Section 120B and 503 punishable under 506 IPC are extracted hereunder: “ 355. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation . Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonor that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. — When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. 503. Criminal intimidation .—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.” 12. As seen from the above provisions and the contents of the complaint, there are specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 that, in view of the disputes between G.Prasad and Respondent No.2 on one hand and K.Koteswara Rao and his family members on the other, having colluded with said K.Koteswara Rao, who is an ASI of Bangalore Regiment, in order to help him, Petitioner/Accused No.1 committed assault on Respondent No.2, dishonoured the Complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences. In view of the specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.1, this Court is of the view that, there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against him. However, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Therefore, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is liable to be quashed. 13. However, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Therefore, as fairly conceded by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, the case against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.833 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali for the offences under Sections 355 , 120B and 506 IPC . The petition against Petitioner/Accused No.1 is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.