THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3033 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of further proceedings in Cr.No.65 of 2010 of Mancherial police station, Adilabad District. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, police registered a case against the petitioner alleging offences under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and Section 420 of IPC. 4. According to the complainant, he entered into an agreement of sale, dated 29.08.2009, with the petitioner for purchase of the house bearing No.12-646, in an area of 304 sq.yards situate in Sy.No.208 of Mancherial shivar for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- and that he paid advance of Rs.2,00,000/- and in the meanwhile petitioner has sold away the said house under a registered sale deed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is purely a civil dispute and the present complaint is filed only to harass the petitioner by making use the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, which have no application at all. 6. Section 3 (1) (v) of the Act states that whoever not being a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interfere with the enjoyment of the rights over any land, premises or water, is punishable. 7. In the present case, admittedly, possession was never delivered to the complainant by the petitioner, and the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the property even after the execution of the agreement of sale. When that is so, the question of dispossession of the complainant from the premises, that too wrongfully nor enjoyment of the same by the complainant does not arise. Admittedly, the complainant was never in possession nor enjoyment of the subject premises. He only entered into an agreement of sale. If according to the complainant, there was any breach of the terms of the contract, it is open to him to avail the civil remedies available under law. This is a case where transaction, which is purely civil in nature, is sought to be given a colour of criminality and that too by invoking the stringent provisions of Section 3 of the Act by way of abusing the said provisions. The ingredients of the alleged offence are not at all attracted to the present case, even prima facie. Continuance of further proceedings in pursuance of the First Information Report in Cr.No.65 of 2010 in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is therefore considered a fit case where the Court has to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in F.I.R.No.65 of 2010, and they are accordingly quashed. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the further proceedings. 9. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th October, 2010 Tsy