ORDER : (K. SUJANA, J.) This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.1416 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hanamkonda, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on March 14, 2024, at 12:30 PM, respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners stating that he and his parents, who have been running a hotel for 40 years on 375 square yards of government land in Ram Nagar Chowrasta, Hanumakonda, faced harassment from the petitioners, and their associates. For the past three years, this group had been threatening respondent No.2 and his parents and demanding Rs.5,00,000/-. In November 2022, when the family of respondent No.2 discovered the hotel of respondent No.2 locked without his consent, they filed a complaint at the Subedari Police Station. The police called petitioner No.1, who claimed the land belonged to her, but when asked to provide proof, she submitted unrelated documents. Upon verification, it was confirmed that the land was government-owned, and she was warned against interfering, even admitting her mistake in writing. However, on November 23, 2023, at around 3:00 AM, petitioner No.1 and 10 to 12 intoxicated associates trespassed onto the property, attacked the family, threatened respondent No.2 and his wife with a knife, scattered household and hotel items, and stole valuables worth approximately Rs.6,00,000/- using three tractors. Additionally, petitioner No.1 confronted electricity employees and got the shop’s power supply disconnected. 3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 , 427 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.1416 of 204 before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hanamkonda. 4. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf. 5. 4. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the registration of the second complaint, as lodged by respondent No.2 under FIR No.157 of 2024 at PS Subedari, and the subsequent charge sheet filed in C.C.No.1416 of 2024 before the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hanamkonda District, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and an abuse of process and that the complaint, alleging offences under Sections 427 , 447, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC , lacks proper investigation, rational application of mind, and adherence to procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code. He further submitted that the petitioners, as rightful owners and peaceful possessors of the land measuring 2392 Sq. Yards in Survey No.1044, Hanamkonda Village, cannot be accused of criminal trespass when they have legal possession and that the complaint does not contain any material evidence to substantiate the allegations, and the Police have registered the case without verifying its veracity, relying instead on a frivolous second complaint filed after an unexplained delay of 110 days. He further submitted that the inconsistency in the claims of the complainant, who initially mentioned Survey No.324 in Waddepally Village in his first complaint on November 24, 2023, and then changed it to Survey No.1044 in Hanamkonda Village in his second complaint on March 14, 2024, suggests deliberate manipulation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Police registered the case in collusion with the complainant, deliberately modifying the survey number after reviewing the petitioners' property documents and that the second complaint, dated March 14, 2024, lacks the signature of the complainant, rendering it legally untenable. Despite submitting all relevant property documents and Court orders on November 24, 2023, the Police proceeded with the charge sheet without conducting a genuine investigation. He further contended that the complaint does not present any prima facie evidence that the complainant was in possession of the disputed property admeasuring 375 Square Yards in Survey No.1044. Despite submitting all relevant property documents and Court orders on November 24, 2023, the Police proceeded with the charge sheet without conducting a genuine investigation. He further contended that the complaint does not present any prima facie evidence that the complainant was in possession of the disputed property admeasuring 375 Square Yards in Survey No.1044. He further contended that the panchama filed by the respondent-Police fails to identify the alleged property and that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are purely civil in nature and the Police, by interfering in the matter, are attempting to coerce a settlement between the parties under the pretext of filing an FIR and charge sheet, which amounts to a gross misuse of the legal framework. It is further submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to support the allegations, and the purported witnesses are merely planted by the complainant and the police. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that filing a charge sheet based on fabricated statements recorded in the police station without proper investigation into listed witnesses and documentary evidence amounts to malicious prosecution. Furthermore, the wrongful implication of accused persons, including petitioners and tenants (Accused No.3 to 6), without any substantial material, demonstrates a deliberate attempt to harass them. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which require trial. Further, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioners does not arise and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the de facto complainant had initially lodged a report before the Police on 23.11.2023 making certain allegations. Based on the said report, the Police addressed a letter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hanmakonda Division, requesting a land survey in respect of the disputed land admeasuring 2392 square yards situated in Old Survey No.751 and New Survey No.1044 at Ram Nagar Chowrastha, near Old Bus Depot, Hanamkonda. However, the prosecution has not furnished any information as to the outcome of the said request for survey. 10. However, the prosecution has not furnished any information as to the outcome of the said request for survey. 10. Subsequently, on 14.03.2024, the de facto complainant lodged another report before the Police containing identical allegations. The only notable difference is that while the earlier complaint referred to Survey Nos.751 and 1044, the subsequent complaint refers only to Survey No.1044, and the extent of land is stated to be 375 square yards. Significantly, the second complaint is silent about the earlier report and the developments pursuant thereto. Based on this second complaint alone, the Investigating Agency has filed the charge sheet. 11. The documents filed by the petitioners reveal that a registered sale deed was executed on 21.10.1987 in favour of petitioner No.1, evidencing her title to the subject property. Further, petitioner No.1 had also instituted W.P.No.13741 of 2010, wherein this Court had directed the respondent- Municipal Corporation not to raise any construction, including drainage nalla, over the petitioner's land without following due procedure. This lends support to the claim that the property belongs to petitioner No.1. 12. It is also evident that the de facto complainant has initiated two different criminal proceedings with respect to the same property, but with varying survey numbers and identical allegations, which prima facie casts doubt on the bona fides of the complaint. The dispute essentially pertains to title over immovable property, which is civil in nature and ought to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court. Institution of criminal proceedings in such a matter appears to be an abuse of the process of law. 13. Furthermore, there is an unexplained delay of 110 days in the registration of the case pursuant to the second complaint, and no justification is offered regarding the status or outcome of the earlier complaint. 14. In view of the above circumstances, the allegations leveled against the petitioners appear to be vague and bereft of substance, and continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1416 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hanamkonda, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.