ORDER : All these criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, designated Court for the trial of cases under Land Grabbing Act, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 500 and 509 of I.P.C. and Section 5 (D) of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban. 2) Petitioner in Crl.P.No.12726 of 2017 is accused No.1, petitioner in Crl.P.No.2508 of 2019 is accused No.2, petitioner in Crl.P.No.2030 of 2019 is accused No.4, and petitioner in Crl.P.No.5515 of 2019 is accused No.5. 3) As all these petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017 and the point involved in all these cases is one and the same, I find that it is expedient to decide these petitions by common order. 4) Defacto complainant Kanchi Ammaji lodged a private complaint before the IV Additional Munsif Magistrate’s Court, Guntur, alleging that accused Nos.1, 2, and 5 are the children of accused No.3, accused No.4 is the daughter-in-law in relation of accused No.3. One Pulakandam Janakirao and Sarojini Devi are the parents of defacto complainant Kanchi Ammaji, defacto complainant. The marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with one K.Veerababu and the couple is blessed with one male namely Kanchi Naga Krishna Murali, who is practicing as an advocate at Guntur, and two female issues namely Jhansi and Lakshmi. Accused No.3 is the aunt of the defacto complainant, who was married to S.China Basavaiah in second marriage as the said S.China Basavaiah was already married to one Late Venkamma and begot a son S.Lakshminarayana, who is the husband of accused No.4. Accused No.3 begot three sons and one daughter i.e. accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and another S.Dhanunjayarao. The marriage of the daughter of defacto complainant was performed with the said S.Dhanunjayarao. 5) It is further alleged that Somarouthu China Basavaiah has died on 07.11.1988. During his life time, he purchased Ac.1.89 cents of land in Sy. Accused No.3 begot three sons and one daughter i.e. accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and another S.Dhanunjayarao. The marriage of the daughter of defacto complainant was performed with the said S.Dhanunjayarao. 5) It is further alleged that Somarouthu China Basavaiah has died on 07.11.1988. During his life time, he purchased Ac.1.89 cents of land in Sy. No.498 located behind Best Price on east to Guntur-Vijayawada Road vide Sale Deed No.5319/1970, dated 10.12.1970 of SRO, Guntur and after his demise on 7.11.1988, accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and the husband of accused No.4 became legal heirs to the estate of China Basavaiah. While so, on 11.2.2015, accused No.3 was died and the Ac.1.69 cents which is in Guntur Municipal Limits was in dispute with Urban Land Ceiling vide its File in ULC No.721/76-B. After the guidelines issued by the Govt. of India in Lr.No.3/1/97 UCU(2) dated 21-5-97 to provide equal share in the surplus land even to the major daughters, all the accused conspired together and hatched a nefarious design to achieve the exemption in the surplus land of Late Somarouthu China Basavaiah and in furtherance of their evil plan on 05.01.2004, accused Nos.1 to 5 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant, filed false representation with forged documents before the Special Officer, ULC. Guntur in the name of the defacto complainant along with accused No.2 for considering their case as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in Lr.No.3/1/97 UCU(2) dated 21.05.1997 which was not considered by the authorities. Guntur in the name of the defacto complainant along with accused No.2 for considering their case as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in Lr.No.3/1/97 UCU(2) dated 21.05.1997 which was not considered by the authorities. In the said representation the name of the defacto complainant was cited as Kanchi Amamji w/o Chinnarao, daughter of China Basavaiah's first wife Venkamma and in support of their version, they enclosed the forged Transfer Certificate as if date of birth of the defacto complainant is 31.08.1956 and was studying in BKR ZP High School, Garapadu village, Vatticherukuru Mandal and similarly A2 also filed W.P.No.11953 of 2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad stating she was the only daughter of S.China Basavaiah and was major by the date of declaration and was entitled to one unit separately and in support of her version she enclosed a fake study certificate purported to have been issued by the Head Master, Audi Andhra Aided Elementary School, Anjaneyapet, Guntur and on that High Court issued an order on 14.07.2004 directing the Special Officer, ULC Gunter to consider the appeal of accused No.2 and to dispose the same in accordance with the law. 6) In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 14.07.2004, Special Deputy Tahsildar conducted an enquiry. During the enquiry by Special Deputy Tahsildar, Urban Land Ceilings, Guntur, it was discovered that there was no such school in that area and thus accused No.2 filed fake and forged document to use as genuine and tried to grab 2000 square meters of site by getting exemption in the declared surplus land. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 5 by making false representation to ULC Special Officer, Guntur, stating that the defacto complainant was the daughter to the first wife of late S.China Basavajah tried to convert the fake and forged document (Transfer Certificate) in to a valuable security of immovable property of 2000 square meters of land, by getting exemption in the surplus land and defamed the defacto complainant by false allegations. 7) In the year 2002, accused Nos.1 to 5 with malicious intention got permission from the ULC authorities, Guntur to sell land to eight different people and sold away 1986.00 sq.yards of land instead of 682 sq. 7) In the year 2002, accused Nos.1 to 5 with malicious intention got permission from the ULC authorities, Guntur to sell land to eight different people and sold away 1986.00 sq.yards of land instead of 682 sq. yards i.e. an excess land of 1304.00 square yards, illegally by deceiving the ULC and Sub-Registrar authorities, Guntur and without having any right to sell the Private/Government land, which does not belong to them. Later, accused got irrelevant and falsified order by managing and influencing the authorities in ULC No.721/76-B, dated 24.01.2008 and as per the ULC Order, total extent of land is Ac1.89 cents, which is equivalent to 9147 Sq.yards, out of which, an extent of 2392 sq.yards was allotted to accused No.3, an extent of 2392 sq.yards was allotted to the husband of accused No.4, an extent of 1913.6 sq.yards was allotted to Ch.Ramanaiah and D.Chennakesavulu and an extent of 1767.2 sq.yards was kept for roads, after the said allotments, remaining land as joint property was only 682 sq.yards, but in spite of that accused Nos.1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of late China Basavaiah has sold 1986 sq.yards, thus, they sold 1304 sq.yards of excess land without any right, thereby, the accused cheated not only the Government, but also the defacto complainant by filing forged document i.e. Transfer Certificate of the complainant, thereby caused damage to the reputation of her family. 8) The learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Police registered the same as FIR No.387 of 2016 on the file of Kothapet Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 120-B, 406, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 500 and 509 of I.P.C. and Section 5 (d) of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 read with 34 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was registered as C.C.No.02 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, designated Court for Trial of Cases under the Land Grabbing Act. Accused No.3 died during the course of investigation. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 filed these petitions to quash the said C.C.L.G.No.02 of 2017. 9) On 18.04.2019, when Criminal Petition No.2508 of 2019 came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order. Accused No.3 died during the course of investigation. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 filed these petitions to quash the said C.C.L.G.No.02 of 2017. 9) On 18.04.2019, when Criminal Petition No.2508 of 2019 came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order. “There shall be stay as prayed for.” 10) During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier respondent No.2 filed a private complaint dated 11.08.2014 against the petitioners before the Court of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, which was referred under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to Kothapeta Police Station in Guntur District. After investigation police filed final report dated 28.10.2014 closing the case with an observation that no offence was committed by the petitioners. Later, respondent No.2 filed another complaint dated 15.03.2015 on the same allegations and the same was referred to the police and police reinvestigated into the case and filed charge sheet in Crime No.387 of 2014 and the same was numbered as C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017. The petition filed by respondent No.2 for reinvestigation was allowed without application of mind as no reasons were assigned for allowing reinvestigation. Further, respondent No.2 is stranger to the family of the petitioners/accused and she does not have any right over the said property as she is the daughter of sister of accused No.3, who is none other than the 2 nd wife of S.China Basavaiah, as such she cannot maintain criminal complaint. Further, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is false, baseless and untenable. Pending the present petition, daughter of respondent No.2 filed a civil suit No.88 of 2014 before I Additional District Judge, Guntur for partition; and the same was dismissed on 31.03.2022. 11) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that one S.China Basavaiah is having land of an extent of Ac.1.89 cents in Sy.No.498 and 497, which was in dispute with the Urban Land Ceiling, Guntur vide U.L.C.No.721/76-B, and that 1 ½ month prior to filing of the private complaint, respondent No.2 came to know about the order dated 24.01.2008 passed by the ULC in the said case and on perusal of the same, she realised that her name was used as apparatus to get exemption in the surplus land of late S.China Basavaiah from the ULC for the benefit of the accused. After the Guidelines issued by the Government of India in letter No.3/1/97 UCU (2) dated 21.05.1997, to provide equal share in the surplus land to the major daughters, the accused conspired together and hatched a nefarious design to achieve the exemption in the surplus land of S.China Basavaiah and filed a false representation with forged documents to the Special Officer, U.L.C., Guntur on 05.01.2004 in the name of the complainant along with accused No.2 for considering their case as per the Guidelines issued by the Government of India in letter No.3/1/97 UCU(2) dated 21.05.1997 which was not considered by the authorities. Later, accused No.2 approached this Court and filed W.P.No.11953 of 2004 by falsely stated in her affidavit that she was major by the date of the ULC Act 1976 and got an order from this Court on 14.07.2004, wherein this Court directed the Special Officer, ULC to consider the representation dated 05.01.2004 submitted by the petitioner therein and disposed of the same in accordance with law. Further, the accused submitted fake and forged transfer certificate issued by the Z.P.High School, Garapadu Village, Guntur District in the name of the complainant and that the legal heirs of S.China Basavaiah made a fake and false representation to U.L.C. special officer, Guntur by stating that the complainant was the wife of Chinna Rao and was born to the first wife Venkayamma of S.China Basavaiah, therefore, the acts of the accused would amount to defamation and requested to dismiss these petitions. 12) 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.L.G.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur: Designated Court for the trail of case under Land Grabbing Act are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? POINT: 13) The petitioners filed the present petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 14) 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. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 15) 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: 16) 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. 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. 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 ] ” 17) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 18) Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are the wife, sons, and daughter-in-law of S.China Basavaiah. Defacto complainant – Kanchi Ammaji is the distant relative of the petitioners herein as her mother’s sister (accused No.3) was married to S.China Basavaiah in second marriage, therefore, she is not directly related to the said S.China Basavaiah. However, defacto complainant performed the marriage of her daughter Jhansi with the son of accused No.3. From the above, prima facie, defacto complainant may not be entitled for any share in the property of S.China Basavaiah as she is not a family member of said S.China Basavaiah. 19) The main allegation levelled against the petitioners by the complainant is that the petitioners-accused submitted fake and forged Transfer Certificate from the Z.P. High School, Garapadu Village, Guntur District in the name of the complainant to use the same as genuine and to convert it into a valuable security of immovable property of 2000 sq.Meters of land by getting exemption in the Surplus land. Further, legal heirs of (late) S.China Basavaiah made a false representation to the U.L.C. Special Officer, Guntur by stating that the complainant was the wife of (late) Chinna Rao and was born to the first wife Venkayamma of (late) S.China Basavaiah. 20) As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, defacto complainant is the daughter of sister of accused No.3, who is the second wife of S.China Basavaiah. 20) As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, defacto complainant is the daughter of sister of accused No.3, who is the second wife of S.China Basavaiah. 21) As contended by the defacto complainant, if really the petitioners made a false representation to the U.L.C. special officer that the complainant was born to the first wife of Venkayamma of (late) S.China Basavaiah, the complainant has an appropriate remedy under Section 38 (3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act”), which is as follows: “(3) If any person who is under an obligation to file a statement under this Act files a statement which he knows or has reasonable belief to be false, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.” 22) To prove that defacto complainant was not born to Venkayamma, who is the 1 st wife of S.China Basavaiah, she has to approach the U.L.C. special officer under Section 38 (3) of the ULC Act. If it is proved, the U.L.C. special officer has power to prosecute the concerned person for filing false and fabricated document under Section 38 (3) of the ULC Act. If really, the petitioners filed fake and fabricated documents in U.L.C., they are liable for punishment under Section 38 (3) of the U.L.C. Act. Instead of approaching U.L.C. authority by filing a petition, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint. 23) Another allegation levelled against the petitioners-accused is that they submitted fake and forged Transfer Certificate of the complainant issued by the Z.P. High School, Garapadu Village, Guntur District to use the same as genuine for getting exemption in the surplus land. But the defacto complainant has failed to explain as to how she is entitled for a share in the property of S.China Basavaiah. As the defacto complainant is not a blood relation of said S.China Basavaiah, prima facie, she is not entitled for any share in the property. When the defacto complainant has no share in the property of S.China Basavaih, the petitioners would not get any benefit by submitting false and forged documents of the defacto complainant in the U.L.C. as alleged by her in the complaint. When the defacto complainant has no share in the property of S.China Basavaih, the petitioners would not get any benefit by submitting false and forged documents of the defacto complainant in the U.L.C. as alleged by her in the complaint. As discussed above, if the petitioners have made a false representation before U.L.C. stating that the complainant was the wife of (late) Chinna Rao and was born to the first wife Venkayamma of (late) S.China Basavaiah, they are liable for prosecution before U.L.C. authority. Without examining the said fact, the Court below registered the private complaint filed by the defacto complainant. Before registering the said complaint, the Magistrate ought to have carefully scrutinised the evidence brought on record and question the complainant and his/her witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. In the present case, it appears that such exercise was not done by the Magistrate. 24) In “Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 ] ” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court held that summoning of an accused in a criminal cases is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The Apex Court further held as follows: “The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 25) In “Deepak Gaba Vs. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 25) In “Deepak Gaba Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [ (2022) 14 SCC 572 ] ” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court observed as follows: “Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the Accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It results in anxiety of uncertain times.” 26) In view of the law laid down in the said judgments, it is clear that summoning order is to be passed when the complaint discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. 27) Learned counsel for the defacto complainant contended that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. In support of his contention, he relied on “Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. 27) Learned counsel for the defacto complainant contended that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. In support of his contention, he relied on “Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal, [ AIR 2001 SC 3846 ] ”, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “We have already noticed that the nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceedings the matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt". 28) However, in the later paragraph, the Apex Court held that “this, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special consideration obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just.” 29) Further, learned counsel for the defacto complainant contended that there is no bar to a trial or conviction of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence. In support of his contention, he relied on “The State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed, [ AIR 2018 SC 5348 ] ”, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “There is no bar to a trial or conviction of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the offence. Where an act or an omission constitutes an offence under two enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.1 The same set of facts, in conceivable cases, can constitute offences under two different laws. An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code and at the same time, an offence under any other law.” 30) The law laid down in the said judgments is not in dispute. In the present complaint, the defacto complainant alleged that the acts of the petitioners in submitting fake and false documents relating to her would amount to defamation. In the present complaint, the defacto complainant alleged that the acts of the petitioners in submitting fake and false documents relating to her would amount to defamation. In the context of a complaint of defamation, it is important to note that before the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not. But, in the present case, no such order was passed by the Magistrate. In this context, the Apex Court “Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH Vs. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, [ (2024) 2 SCC 86 ] ”, held as follows: “In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint and other material (obtained through the process referred to in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether 'sufficient ground for proceeding' exists as distinguished from 'sufficient ground for conviction', which has to be left for determination at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued. Although there is nothing in the law which in express terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether any of the Exceptions to Section 499, Indian Penal Code is attracted, there is no bar either. After all, what is 'excepted' cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the provision.” 31) In “Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. State of Karnataka, [ (2022) 14 SCC 572 ] ” relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court observed as follows: “Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.” 32) It can be seen from the material on record, daughter of the defacto complainant by name Jhansi along with others filed civil suit O.S.No.88 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Guntur against the petitioners herein and others, wherein defacto complainant is also shown as defendant, for partition of property. In the said suit, defacto complainant as defendant No.9 filed written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs therein i.e. her daughter and others for partition of property. During pendency of the said suit, defacto complainant filed the present complaint. However, after full-fledged trial, the said suit O.S.No.88 of 2014 was dismissed vide order 31.03.2022. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the defacto complainant filed the present complaint with some dishonest intention to pressurize the petitioners to settle the issues in favour of her daughter. 33) One more important point to be noted here is that as per the material on record, prior to filing of the present complaint, defacto complainant filed a private complaint dated 11.08.2014 against the petitioners before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, which was referred to Kothapeta police station in Guntur District under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and that the police after completion of investigation, filed final report dated 28.10.2014 closing the case with an observation that no offence was committed by the accused. Later, defacto complainant filed another complaint dated 15.03.2015 on the same allegations and after reinvestigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. But, neither the defacto complainant nor the police explained the compelling circumstances, which warrant reinvestigation of the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, on this ground also the proceedings in the present complaint are liable to be quashed. 34) In view of the aforesaid discussion, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the criminal petitions deserve to be allowed. 34) In view of the aforesaid discussion, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the criminal petitions deserve to be allowed. 35) Accordingly, the criminal petition Nos.12726 of 2017, 2508, 2030 and 5515 of 2019 are allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.L.G.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, designated Court for the trial of cases under Land Grabbing Act. 36) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.