JUDGMENT K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.41 of 2015 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the charge sheet, are that the de facto complainant is the resident of Saleem Nagar in Nandyal town. about nine (9) years back, the marriage of de facto complainant with one anchula Praveen James was performed. a1 is mother-in-law and a2 is younger brother of de facto complainant. The father-in-law of de facto complainant owned 9 cents of land in SPG Compound, Nandyal town, wherein a house bearing No.26-259 is about 41/2 cents of the land is situated and remaining site is open place. On 19.11.2013 the husband of the de facto complainant died due to ill-health. Thereafter there are no good terms between the families of the accused and de facto complainant. On 30.12.2013 the de facto complainant has come to know that a1 and a2 cheated the de facto complainant by selling her site and a house bearing No.26-604-17 to a3 and the same were got registered in Sub-Registrar's Office by creating fake documents. Thus, the accused have cheated the de facto complainant and also abused and threatened her with dire consequences when she questioned. On that the de facto complainant filed a private complaint against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Special assistant Public Prosecutor. This Court perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contends that even accepting the entire accusation made against the petitioners, no offence is made out. The disputes are civil in nature. The de facto complainant lodged complaint with a view to grab the properties and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Special assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all facts which are raised by the learned counsel are to be established in the course of trial. 5. The de facto complainant lodged complaint with a view to grab the properties and to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Special assistant Public Prosecutor contended that all facts which are raised by the learned counsel are to be established in the course of trial. 5. The marriage of the de facto complainant and one anchula Praveen James, who is the son of a1 was performed about nine (9) years back. Some marital disputes arose between them. as a result of which, the 2nd respondent herein lodged a complaint against her husband and in-laws for the offence punishable under Section 498-a IPC. During the pendency of the said case, the matter was amicably settled and both the parties entered into compromise. as such, the said case was referred to Lok adalat on 14.7.2012. The Lok adalat Bench at Kurnool passed an award stating that the case as against the husband of the de facto complainant has been abated. The matter has been compromised in the presence of members of Lok adalat for the offence under Section 498-a IPC. after observation of three (3) months period, the statutory time for recording compromise and to pass award, the de facto complainant, the wife of anchula Praveen James and daughter-in-law of a1, agreed, that she will not file any maintenance case, domestic violence case and any other harassment cases as against the accused and accepted that the matter is fully and finally settled. Therefore, the petitioners/a1 and a2 were acquitted, in view of the said compromise arrived at in between the parties. 6. a perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that a1 and a2 created fake documents and sold the property to a3. The crux of the whole case is with regard to creation of fake documents and threatening the de facto complainant with dire consequences in order to sell away the property belonging to joint family. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble apex Court. In Vinodh Natesan Vs. The crux of the whole case is with regard to creation of fake documents and threatening the de facto complainant with dire consequences in order to sell away the property belonging to joint family. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble apex Court. In Vinodh Natesan Vs. State of Kerala and others aIR 2019 Supreme Court 296, it is held in paragraph No.6 as follows; 'Having heard the appellant as party in person and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused as well as the State of Kerala and considering the judgment [Tomy Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 33330] and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has not committed any error in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. Even considering the allegations and averments made in the FIR and the case on behalf of the appellant, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month's notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.' 7. In Suresh Kumar Goyal and Ors Vs. Stte of Uttar Pradesh and another aIR 2019 Supreme Court 535, it is held in paragraph No.29 as follows; '29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.' 8. The principle laid down, in the aforesaid judgments, would not be applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand, for the reason that in the present case, the dispute is with regard to creation of the fake documents and selling away the joint family property to a3. By any stretch of imagination, the dispute cannot be said that this is a civil proceeding. Truth or otherwise has to be established in the course of trial. It cannot be assumed by this Court and come to a conclusion that the dispute is purely civil in nature. By any stretch of imagination, the dispute cannot be said that this is a civil proceeding. Truth or otherwise has to be established in the course of trial. It cannot be assumed by this Court and come to a conclusion that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is cautioning that Criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted at the initial stage merely because civil proceedings are also pending. This view of mine is also fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in K. Jagadish Vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another (2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases 552. In view of the accusation levelled against the accused that they have fabricated documents and sold away the property to a3, the truth or otherwise of the said accusation has to be decided after full-fledged trial. This is a premature stage, where this Court would not go into testing the ingredients under Section 415 IPC. It would be hyper technical approach. Such an endeavour may be justified after the trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.