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.4 and 5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District registered for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short ‘IPC’. 2. Heard Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are disputes between the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 for the last 25 years. Learned counsel would further submit that prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are not the parties to the alleged disputes. The Petitioners are falsely implicated. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is a premature stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioners in the alleged crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint discloses the names of the Petitioners. It is submitted that, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has not been completed and unless the same is completed, the presence of the Petitioners at the time of the alleged incident cannot be revealed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 5. 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 the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District? Determination by the Court 6. 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 the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District? Determination by the Court 6. 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. 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. 7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 uncontroverted 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. (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. 103. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 8. As seen from the contents of the complaint, Respondent No.2 is the brother of the deceased. It is alleged that, Respondent No.2 and his two brothers have agricultural land of an extent of Ac.2.00 cents each and they have been cultivating the same by raising paddy and other crops. There are disputes between the families of Respondent No.2 and the family of Accused No.1 for the last 25 years. In connection with the said disputes, Accused No.1 and his family members have been damaging the crops of Respondent No.2 and his brothers, due to which, the deceased stopped cultivation. Eventhough, Accused No.1 and his family members used to insult the deceased and threatening him to leave the village. While so, on 18.01.2022 at about 3.00 p.m., while Respondent No.2, the deceased, the wife of the deceased were going to their fields, at Marikuntapalli Cross Road, Accused Nos.1 to 10 restrained and quarrelled with the deceased and threatened to kill him. They also provoked him to commit suicide, otherwise they would not leave us until we leave the village. Unbearable with the said harassment of all the Accused, on 19.01.2022 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased consumed PROFOS pesticide and while undergoing treatment, he died on 23.01.2022 at 5.45 p.m. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against all the Accused. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” (emphasis supplied) 10. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint would disclose that there are disputes between the families of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 for the last several years and with regard to the same, they have been harassing the family members of Respondent No.2, which led the deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has not been done. As rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor the names of the Petitioners were mentioned in the complaint. The allegations levelled against the Petitioners are specific and the same have to be revealed during investigation. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage. As such, at this stage, this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case is not falling under any of the guidelines mentioned in Bhajanlal's case (supra). There are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 11. At the time of pronouncement of this Order, learned counsel for the Petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that there is interim protection not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners till this day and the same protection may be given to the Petitioners directing the Police to proceed with the investigation. 12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that Court may pass appropriate orders. 13. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the grievance expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, it is left open to the Petitioners to move an anticipatory bail application before the District Court at Hindupur and on filing such application, the learned Judge is requested to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible preferably on the same day according to law. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with the above observations. Police are directed to proceed with the investigation. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.