ORDER : N.TUKARAMJI, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’) seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.375 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri-Medchal District Uppal at L.B. Nagar against the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr.K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. 3. The petitioner is sole accused in C.C.No.375 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant claiming ownership over 71 plots in the panchayat layout in Sy.No.752 situated at Kakatiya Nagar Colony, Yamnampet village, Ghatkesar Mandal, sold the plots. On 10.08.2023 at about 12 noon the petitioner/accused along with friends illegally trespassed into the said plots with JCB and damaged the boundary stones. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police report referred Sy.No.752 whereas the investigating officer filed charge sheet referring Sy.No.152. That apart, the petitioner is successor of Ac.11.00 guntas of patta land in Sy.No.152 and the entries in khasra pahanies as early as 1955-58 establishing this fact. Further on the relevant date the petitioner had entered his own property, as such, at any stretch the action of the petitioner cannot be held as trespass. That apart, to attract Section 447 IPC, mere entering into the property will not be culpable until the element of intention to commit an offence, intimidate, insult or annoy the property owner or occupant is alleged. The entire material collected by the prosecution is not making out such circumstance. That apart, though causing loss or damage has been referred, however, no material has been collected to substantiate the same. On other hand there is no material to show that the petitioner had entered into the de facto complainant’s property. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of process. Hence prayed for quashment of the calendar case proceedings. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the police report it has been alleged that the petitioner had trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant along with his friends with JCB. Further pleads that the eye witnesses also made similar statements. Hence prayed for quashment of the calendar case proceedings. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the police report it has been alleged that the petitioner had trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant along with his friends with JCB. Further pleads that the eye witnesses also made similar statements. Basing on such material the charge sheet has been filed and the facts would be determined in the trial. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Though the respondent No.2/de facto complainant served with notice and entered appearance through counsel, chose to remain silent. 8. I have perused the materials on record and duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel. 9. The specific accusation is that the petitioner had criminally trespassed into the landed property of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant along with his friends and JCB machine and damaged the property/caused mischief to the property. As per the petitioner/accused he got nearly Ac.12.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.152 devolved from his parents and this position is reflected in the Khasra pahani and the legal heir certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khairatabad. Though the police report has referred to Sy.No.752, the investigating agency basing on the documents collected during investigation mentioned the Sy.Nos. 752 and 152. This situation is demonstrating contesting claims that the property claimed by the de facto complainant in the Sy.No.752 whereas the petitioner in Sy.No.152 which are ex facie distinct properties. In either case the fundamental fact to be determined is the trespass into the landed property of the de facto complainant. Though the charge sheet is referring to visit of the investigating officer along with mediators to the place of offence, there is no reference as to collection of material to indicate that the petitioner had entered the property of the de facto complainant. Interestingly the statements of witnesses referred the disputed property is in Sy.No.752 while as per the documents of the de facto complainant, his property is in Sy.No.152. Thus even if the materials presented in the charge sheet are taken as it is, they are falling short in prima facie establishing the essential facts making out perpetration of the petitioner. Therefore continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be baseless and abuse of process. 10. For the aforesaid, the criminal petition is liable to be and is accordingly allowed. Therefore continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would be baseless and abuse of process. 10. For the aforesaid, the criminal petition is liable to be and is accordingly allowed. In consequence the proceedings in C.C.No.375 of 2024 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri-Medchal District Uppal at L.B. Nagar against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.