ORDER : J.M.KHAZI, J. These petitions are by accused Nos.1 and 2, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.58703/2017 on the file of XI ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. As these two petitions are arising out of the same case, they are clubbed together and disposed off by a common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the Court. 4. It is contended by the petitioners that accused No.1 joined Indian Army in the year 1985 and served at various places across the country in various capacities. Later, in the year 2001, he joined DRDO as Estate Manager in his capacity of Lieutenant Colonel, absorbed as Scientist'D' promoted as Scientist 'E' and worked as an Estate Manager during 2008–2011. 4.1 Similarly, No.2 joined Indian Army in the year1967 and served at various places across the country in various capacity. In the year 1993, he joined DRDO as Estate Superintendent in civilian capacity. At DRDO, he worked as in-charge of Accounts section, Store section and also Legal-in-charge dealing with land and litigation cases at various Courts. 4.2 The DRDO sought for acquiring land measuring to an extent of 113 acres and 36 guntas for establishing Electronic Warfare Range and other strategic projects of national importance. However, the land acquisition officer notified land measuring to an extent of 97 acres in various survey numbers of B.Narayanapura, Benniganahalli and Kaggadasapura, K.R. Pura, Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (Now coming under Bengaluru East Taluk), including 1 acre, 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli. 4.3 However, after the lands were notified for acquisition, the State Government withdrawn various Survey Numbers from acquisition, including land in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli measuring 2 1/2 guntas vide the Notification dated 16.02.1995. It was challenged by the DRDO in W.P.Nos.38638–646/1998. Vide order dated 25.01.2000, the said petitions came to be dismissed. DRDO challenged the same in W.A.Nos.2002–2010/2000. The said writ appeals came to be allowed vide order dated 24.08.2000. However, neither the notified Khatedar nor alleged purchasers challenged the said order and as such it became final. 4.4 Respondent No.2/complainant claimed to have purchased 2 1/2 guntas of land forming part of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli. Later, some of the land owners filed Special Leave Petitions. However, neither the notified Khatedar nor alleged purchasers challenged the said order and as such it became final. 4.4 Respondent No.2/complainant claimed to have purchased 2 1/2 guntas of land forming part of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli. Later, some of the land owners filed Special Leave Petitions. Leave was granted and they were numbered as Civil Appeal.No.6362/2001 and disposed of in terms of joint memo filed by the parties in the civil appeals, in which land measuring 2 1/2 guntas forming part of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 is not included. Hence, the wife of respondent No.2/complainant did not get any right, title, possession, and interest in the property alleged to have purchased by her. 4.5 However, respondent No.2/complainant went on giving written information with Bayappanahalli police dated 16.08.2004, 28.09.2004, 12.01.2005, 30.06.2005, 06.05.2007, 08.02.2008, 21.08.2008, 12.11.2008 and 08.03.2009 alleging trespass against the petitioners. It was registered in Cr.No.146/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 IPC. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police filed 'B' report. Instead of accepting the 'B' report, on the basis of protest petition, the trial Court rejected the same and ordered for registering criminal case against the petitioners. They have pleaded not guilty and recording of evidence is going on. 4.6 The case is pending since 2009. The wife of respondent No.2/complainant whom he is representing as PA holder is not having any right, title, possession or interest in the land measuring 2 1/2 guntas forming part of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli. Even otherwise the complaint does not contain ingredients of offences. Without application of mind, the trial Court has rejected 'B' report. The alleged offences are barred by limitation. Petitioners are aged and pendency of the criminal proceedings is causing mental agony and prejudice. Respondent No.2/complainant has not secured any sanction to prosecute the petitioners. The alleged offences are non-cognizable and hence the petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1/State that by a considered order the trial Court has rejected the 'B' report and proceeding with the matter and it is to be decided in full fledged trial. 6. Respondent No.2/complainant submitted that his wife was in possession of 2 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli and he was running business in the name of Coorg Coffee Works. 6. Respondent No.2/complainant submitted that his wife was in possession of 2 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli and he was running business in the name of Coorg Coffee Works. It is illegally removed and they have been dispossessed. He would submit that out of the acquired land, the petitioners have sold many portions where high rised buildings are raised. The allegations against the petitioners are required to be proved at the trial and pray to dismiss the petition. 7. The undisputed facts are that since DRDO required land for establishing electronic warfare range and other strategic projects of national importance an extent of 97 acres were notified for acquisition including Sy.No.107/5 of Benneganahalli measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. Respondent No.2/complainant in his capacity as power of attorney of his wife P.C. Prema is claiming that out of this 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.107/5, she has purchased 2 1/2 guntas and he has set up a business by name Coorg Coffee Works. The respondent has not produced any documents with regard to purchase of the said property to ascertain whether it was purchased prior to or subsequent to the initiation of acquisition proceedings. His complaint to the concerned police at Annexure-B is in the form of reminder to the police to his earlier series of representations. It also does not reveal the above details. 8. Various land owners challenged the acquisition in W.P.Nos.19245-19253/1989 and 13653-665/1989 including the land owners in Sy.No.107/5 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. The said writ petitions were allowed on 16.04.1991. It was challenged by DRDO in W.A.No.2189- 97/1992 which came to be allowed, confirming the acquisition. In respect of Sy.No.107/5 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas of Benniganahalli award was published on18.08.1983. 9. However, the State Government withdrawn various survey numbers from acquisition including Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli measuring 2 1/2 guntas vide Notification dated 16.02.1995. The DRDO unsuccessfully challenged the same in W.P.No.38638- 646/98, which came to be dismissed on 25.01.2000. However, W.A.Nos.2002-2001/2000 filed before the Division Bench by the DRDO came to be allowed on 24.08.2000. It was not challenged by the notified Khatedars or alleged purchaser and as such it became final. C.P. Prema, wife of respondent No.2 claiming to be the owner of 2 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli filed O.S.No.4507/2001 for permanent injunction, which ultimately came to be dismissed. No appeal was filed against it and as such it became final. It was not challenged by the notified Khatedars or alleged purchaser and as such it became final. C.P. Prema, wife of respondent No.2 claiming to be the owner of 2 1/2 guntas in Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli filed O.S.No.4507/2001 for permanent injunction, which ultimately came to be dismissed. No appeal was filed against it and as such it became final. 10. In the meanwhile, some of the land owners filed Special Leave petitions and it was allowed and Civil Appeal Nos.6362-68/2001 were registered. They came to be disposed of on 17.10.2004 based on joint memo filed by the parties. However, C.P.Prema was not a party to the said Civil Appeals and Sy.No.107/5 measuring 2 1/2 guntas was not the subject matter of the said settlement. Therefore, she would not get the benefit of the Notification under Section 48(1) of Land Acquisition Act issued by the Government. Only those persons who approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal Nos.6362- 68/2001 and who entered into settlement are entitled for the said benefit. 11. However, respondent No.2 who is the husband of C.P. Prema and her PA holder has filed number of complaints in the form of representations to the concerned police alleging that he and his wife have been dispossessed from their land by the petitioners illegally. Though the concerned police registered case in Cr.No.146/2009, ultimately, after conducting detailed investigation, they have filed 'B' report stating that the property is acquired for the benefit of DRDO and its possession has been handed over to the DRDO by Special Land Acquisition Officer. 12. Respondent No.2 has chosen to file protest petition and based on his evidence and documents, the trial Court has ordered for prosecution of petitioners. At the outset it is relevant to note that the petitioners are not having any personal interest in the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings. They are the ex-employees of DRDO. In the light of the fact that the lands in question including Sy.No.107/5 of Benniganahalli totally measuring 1 acre 25 guntas including 2 1/2 guntas claimed by C.P. Prema is acquired and handed over to the possession of DRDO for whose benefit the acquisition is made, neither respondent No.2 nor his wife are having any right, title, interest or possession over the same. Even the suit filed by C.P Prema in O.S.4507/2001 is dismissed. She has not challenged the same. 13. Even the suit filed by C.P Prema in O.S.4507/2001 is dismissed. She has not challenged the same. 13. Though the trial Court has made an observation that respondent No.2/complainant has produced 62 documents and it has gone through them, it has not made any analysis of the said documents and state the reasons as to basis on which it has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty of offences punishable under Section 427, 447 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Having regard to the fact that the land claimed by C.P. Prema and resp[ondent No.2 is already acquired and its possession has been legally handed over by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the findings of the trial Court that there is material to proceed against petitioners is inconsistent with the said record and as such perverse. 14. So far as allegations by respondent No.2/complainant that petitioners have sold some of the portions of acquired property and high-rise buildings are constructed, learned counsel representing petitioners would submit that they are the portions which are settled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the de-notification was upheld. By way of settlement between the parties to the said settlement, the said portions were withdrawn from acquisition and in turn they have sold the said properties to others and purchasers have constructed high-rise buildings. Admittedly, the wife of respondent No.2/complainant is not a party to the said settlement, and as such they cannot claim benefit of the same. 15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law and as such liable to be quashed. 16. In the result, both petition succeeds and accordingly, the following: ORDER : (i) Crl.P.No.2967/2023 filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.3034/2023 filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C are hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 28.04.2014 in C.C.No.58703/2017 on the file of XI ACMM, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.