IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, October 13, 2011. Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Petition No. 3979 of 2009 Between: Katakam Ramesh ..Petitioner and State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Petition No. 3979 of 2009 O r d e r: This criminal petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No. 143 of 2009 on the file of P.S., Korutla, Karimnagar District. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. None appears for the second respondent, though he was served with notice. 3. The brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition, as could be seen from the complaint petition, filed by the de facto complainant, which was forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate may be stated as follows: The petitioner is A-1 in Cr.No.143 of 2009 of P.S., Korutla, Karimnagar District. It was alleged by the de facto complainant that the petitioner (A-1) agreed to sell six guntas of land in Sy.No.1155 of Korutla village; received entire sale consideration from the de facto complainant and delivered possession of the land. Subsequently, the de facto complainant visited the land; verified the extent and came to now that two guntas of land, out of six guntas, is gifted away by the petitioner (A-1) to his daughter and thereafter on 14.2.2011 at about 10-00 PM, when the de facto complainant questioned the petitioner (A-1), A-2 and A-3, who are his associates about the shortage of land, which was agreed to be sold, it is said that A-1 refused to deliver possession of the remaining land and also threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. It is basing on the above said allegation in the complaint petition filed by the de facto complainant, the complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police, who registered the case under sections 290, 506,420 and 421 IPC. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will submit that the entire allegations are false and invented. In fact, when the de facto complainant tried to occupy the land belonging to the petitioner by force, he filed O.S.No. 58 of 2007 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagityal, Karimnagar District and the said suit was decreed. The de facto complainant (2nd respondent) never questioned that decree by filing an appeal; but filed the present complaint with all false and fictitious allegations to harass the petitioner and other accused. 5. In any event, even the entire allegations are considered to be true, they only constitute a civil dispute in respect of which the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated by the second respondent- de facto complainant. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat[1] held that “when the FIR clearly discloses a civil dispute between the parties and civil suit filed before a competent civil court by a person with proper locus standi is still pending between the parties to the dispute, there is no cause of action even to lodge the FIR against the opposite party and the FIR registered pursuant to the report lodged by the de facto complainant is liable to be quashed in a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.” 7. In the present case also, it is obvious that on account of the civil dispute with A-1, the second respondent-de facto complainant filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging commission of criminal offences by the petitioner and other accused. The attempt of the second respondent is illegal, improper and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. This court in exercise of its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner (A-1) in Cr.No. 143 of 2009 on the file of P.S., Korutla, Karimnagar District are herby quashed. ___________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. October 13, 2011. *BVS [1] 2011 (7) SCC 59