ORDER 1. The petition is filed seeking to call tor the records in C.C. No. 244 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar and quash the same. 2. The 2nd respondent has preferred a complaint against the petitioners tor the alleged offences 120-b, 420, 445, 466 and 468 IPC. The offence relates to a land an extent of 3 acres 21 cents in S. No. 1298 of Keelathiruthangal village of Virudhunagar Taluk. 3. According to the complainant, the said property originally belonged to his grandfather one Thiruvengadappa-Naicker, and he had executed a gift settlement deed dated 7.3.1931 in favour of the complainant. As he was a minor, his mother Mangammal and one Ramalainga Swamy were appointed as guardians. The complainant would further allege that patta No. 797 was granted in his favour and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and on 7.9.2009, he had executed a gift deed in favour of his sons, Kannadasan and Seeni Raj. While so, the petitioners have entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to cheat the complainant, have created false and fraudulent documents and thereby committed the above said offences. The case was registered by the first respondent in Cr. No. 1089 of 2009 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in C.C. No. 244 of 2010. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners have come forward to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Ms. N. Sureka, learned counsel for Mr. T. Arulraj would submit that a civil dispute has been converted into criminal proceedings and there is no materials to show that the petitioners have committed any of the offences as alleged in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet. The learned counsel pointed out that the complainant has nothing to do with the property and even assuming that he has inherited the property under the gift deed, which is disputed by the petitioners, has to approach the civil Court to declare his title. The learned counsel pointed out that the sons of the complainant has already filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 161 of 2009 and pending suit, the complainant has preferred the present complaint without any basis. 5. The learned counsel pointed out that the sons of the complainant has already filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 161 of 2009 and pending suit, the complainant has preferred the present complaint without any basis. 5. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioners have not even produced the document before the Court but the complainant has jumped to the conclusion that they are forged and fraudulent documents. She would further submit that it is the categorical stand by the petitioners that the complainant is not the actual legal heir to the said Thiruvengadappan, whereas the 3rd petitioner and the accused 4 to 6 have inherited the property through their grandfathers and therefore, their legal rights cannot be questioned in a criminal proceedings. 6. She relied on various judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as stated below regarding the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1. Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal and Others AIR 2008 SC 251 : (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cr) 259 : LNIND 2007 SC 1179 : (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1469 2. Pepsi Foods Ltd and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others AIR 1998 SC 128 : (1998) SCC (Cr) 1400 : LNIND 1997 SC 1379 3. K.L.E. Society and Others v. Siddalingesh AIR 2008 SC 1702 : (2008) 4 SCC 541 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 455 : LNIND 2008 SC 544 : (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1171 4. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd and Another v. Datar Switchgear Ltd. and Others (2011) 1 SCC 24 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cr) 68 : LNIND 2010 SC 979 : (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 786 5. Baijnath Jha v. Sita Ram and Another AIR 2008 SC 2778 : (2008) 8 SCC 77 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cr) 428 : LNIND 2008 SC 1292 : (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 625 6. Sharon Michael and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2009) 3 SCC 315 : LNIND 2008 SC 2506 : (2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 102 7. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : LNIND 1960 SC 96 : (1961) 1 MLJ (Crl) 21 8. Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 1528 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 1 : LNIND 2008 SC 423 9. Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma and Others (2008) 3 SCC (Cr) 920 7. R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : LNIND 1960 SC 96 : (1961) 1 MLJ (Crl) 21 8. Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 1528 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 1 : LNIND 2008 SC 423 9. Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma and Others (2008) 3 SCC (Cr) 920 7. In all the above case laws the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has laid down the well settled principle that when the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, the criminal proceedings are abuse of process of Court. 8. On the contrary, Mr. S. Ramasamy, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the complainant had established that he is the owner of the property and the accused have created mortgage deed and sale deed only to cheat and defraud the complainant and his sons and therefore, criminal proceedings were initiated. The learned counsel pointed out that only after a thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the Court need not quash the proceedings at the threshold and the proceedings may allow to be continued for its logical conclusion. 9. He relied on a decision in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B and Others (2002) SCC (Cr) 200 : LNIND 2001 SC 2370 : (2002) 1 MLJ (Crl) 272 , in which the Apex Court has held as follows: “The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. There is no substance in the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different Court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings. The nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. The nature and scope of civil and criminal proceedings and the standard of proof required in both matters is different and distinct. Whereas in civil proceedings the matter can be decided on the basis of probabilities, the criminal case has to be decided by adopting the standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction”. 10. He also relied on a decision in S. Rajesh v. State rep by the Inspector of Police, LNIND 2009 Mad 662 : (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 937. Wherein this Court held as follows: “7. A careful perusal of the rival contentions as well as the authorities produced before this Court clearly shows that stalling of the criminal prosecution by the petitioner is totally misconceived. This Court under Section 482 cannot stall the prosecution at the threshold. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the defense taken by the petitioner as it will prejudice the case in the regular trial. Suffice it to say that the contention raised by the petitioner in maintain the petition under Section 492 to quash the complaint pending before the Trial Court is unwarranted.” 11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 12. The complainant would allege that he has inherited the property from one Thiruvengadappa Naicker under a gift deed dated 7.3.1931. Under this document one Thiruvengadappa Naicker son of Narayanappa Naicker had executed a deed in favour of his grandson, a minor aged 2 years, named Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan. The subject matter of the deed is an extent of 2 acres 21 cents in S. No. 1298 of Keelathiruthangal village of Virudhunagar Taluk in patta No. 587. 13. Under this document one Thiruvengadappa Naicker son of Narayanappa Naicker had executed a deed in favour of his grandson, a minor aged 2 years, named Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan. The subject matter of the deed is an extent of 2 acres 21 cents in S. No. 1298 of Keelathiruthangal village of Virudhunagar Taluk in patta No. 587. 13. One Ramraj, Village Administrative Officer of Keelathiruthangal had given a statement before the investigating officer stating that the land in S. No. 1298 was in patta No. 797 in the name of one Thiruvengadappa Naicker (complainant) and the said Thiruvengadappa Naicker executed a settlement deed in favour of his sons Kannadasan and Seeni Raj and presently, the patta has been transferred to their name in Patta No. 3086. 14. The 1st petitioner had also given a statement stating that his grandfathers viz., Ramalinga Naicker, Venkatasamy Naicker, Sankarappa Naicker and Thiruvengadappa Naicker possessed ancestral properties and the said Thiruvenkgadappa Naicker died issueless and Ramalinga Naicker also died and the property devolved on Venkatasamy Naicker and Sankarappa Naicker and through his grandfather it devolved upon the petitioners and Others. The complainant Thiruvengadappan is not the person viz, Srinivasan @ Thiruvengadappan as he claims through the settlement deed. 15. The 3rd petitioner has also given a statement claiming a right in the property along wtih the 1st petitioner. Therefore, there are rival claims in the property and a suit has been filed by the sons of the complainant in O.S. No. 161 of 2009 and it is pending. The suit was filed in the year 2009, but the date and month is not available. But the present complaint has been given on 9.12.2009. Therefore it is evident that there are two rival claimants for the property. 16. On the face of the record, it is evident that the property in S. No. 1298 of an extent 3.21 acre in patta No. 587 originally belonged to one Thiruvenkagappa Naicker, S/o Narayanappa Naicker and he had executed a gift deed in favour of his grandson Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan S/o Narayanaappa Naicker. 17. The only claim of the petitioner is that the present complainant Thiruvengadappan is not the person mentioned in the deed of 1931 as Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan. But at the same time, the petitioners have proceeded to execute documents claiming title to the property through their forefathers. 17. The only claim of the petitioner is that the present complainant Thiruvengadappan is not the person mentioned in the deed of 1931 as Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan. But at the same time, the petitioners have proceeded to execute documents claiming title to the property through their forefathers. Though they have traced the title to one C.T. Thiruvengadappan, the fact remains that Thiruvengadappan S/o Narayanappa Naicker had executed a deed, in favour of one Srinivasan @ Thiruvengadappan and the said Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan should be the title holder and the petitioners have not traced their title through the said Srinivasan alias Thiruvengadappan. But they only deny that the present complainant is not that person. 18. Therefore, the complainant has made out a prima facie case against the petitioners and it is for the petitioners to prove that they are the rightful owners through their forefathers. When there is a prima facie case made out, the jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to quash1the proceedings at the threshold and it is for the complainant to establish his title and prove the alleged offences against the petitioners. 19. Therefore, 1 am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before,the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar in C.C. No. C.C. No. 244 of 2010. 20. Therefore, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently connected MPs are closed. Petition dismissed.