ORDER : (J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.22 of 2025 on the file of the Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, for the alleged offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2.1 The case of prosecution in brief is that the de-facto complainant lodged complaint with the police stating that his grandfather, namely, late Chakali Balaiah owns land of Ac. 1.04 gts. in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village and Ac. 5.33 guntas in Sy. No. 22 of Nagireddypally village, thus, total extent of Ac. 6.37 guntas. The Complainant's father has progeny of three sons, i.e., (1) Pedda Ramaiah, (2) Late Papaiah, (3) Late Laxmaiah and the Complainant father is younger among them and 40 years back those three members divided the ancestral land approximate shares and the complainant's father received (i) Ac. 1.04 gts in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village, (ii) Ac.1.09 gts in Sy. No. 22 of Nagireddypally, thus, the total extent of Ac. 2.13gts. 2.2. It is further stated that in the year 1996-1997, complainant's father and his brothers quarreled with each other regarding property share, as such in the year 2005, they approached the Civil Court and filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005 along with I.A. No. 79 of 2005 and obtained status quo order and the above case is pending in the court. 2.3. It is also stated that one Vasudaika Reality venture is adjacent to his land in Sy. No. 155 of Nagireddypally village and on 27.02.2024 Vasudaika Reality’s venture members were occupied 0-25 guntas from the Complainant's land. Then they conducted survey in said land and as per survey report, it was revealed that Vasudaika venture persons occupied 0-25 guntas from complainant's land. Ten months back Vasudaika reality venture left above said 0-25 guntas to the Complainant. 2.4 It is further stated that on 01.12.2024 at about 09:30 hours, the Complainant along with his brother Ramachandraiah went to their land and noticed that Vasudaika Reality venture owner namely Jagarlamudi Venkat Ram, Supervisor Srinivas and others illegally trespassed into the complainant's land and erected a precast wall and commenced road construction within the complainant's land boundaries. 2.4 It is further stated that on 01.12.2024 at about 09:30 hours, the Complainant along with his brother Ramachandraiah went to their land and noticed that Vasudaika Reality venture owner namely Jagarlamudi Venkat Ram, Supervisor Srinivas and others illegally trespassed into the complainant's land and erected a precast wall and commenced road construction within the complainant's land boundaries. Then the complainant asked the same, and after discussion they agreed to remove the precast wall and five days back they removed some portion of precast wall, but not completely removed it. When the complainant asked about the same, they threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the Crime No.22 of 2025 was registered for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. 3. Heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Krishna Karthik, learned counsel, representing Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.2-de-facto complainant and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated as accused Nos.1 and 2 in this crime. Even according to the complaint, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners is civil in nature and respondent No.2 with an intention to resolve the civil disputes lodged the complaint. He further submitted that in order to attract an offense under Section 324(4) of BNS, which deals with "Mischief," an act must involve causing damage or loss to property, and the act must be done with the intent to cause wrongful loss or with knowledge that it is likely to cause such loss. In the entire complaint, no where it is mentioned that the petitioners have caused damage to the property and therefore, the ingredients of Section 324(4) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. 4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 even without approaching the competent Civil Court has lodged the present complaint with an intention to harass the petitioners, though the police/investigating officers cannot decide the civil dispute raised by respondent No.2. 4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 even without approaching the competent Civil Court has lodged the present complaint with an intention to harass the petitioners, though the police/investigating officers cannot decide the civil dispute raised by respondent No.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments; i) Anilakumari vs. State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1732 ii) Joseph Akkara and others vs. State of Kerala represented by the Sub Inspector of Police and another, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 13847 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have encroached his land admeasuring 0-25 guntas covered by Sy.No.155 of Nagireddypally Village and erected a precast wall. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, they removed part of the said precast wall, however, they have not completely removed the same. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences. Moreover, the investigation is under threshold and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quash the crime and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 made a specific allegations against the petitioners and therefore, they are not entitled to seek quash the crime, especially when the investigation is under progress. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 12.01.2025 against the petitioners, wherein it is specifically stated that the petitioners have encroached the land admeasuring Ac.0-25 guntas covered by Sy.No.155 and erected a precast wall. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, they removed part of the said precast wall, however, they have not completely removed the entire precast wall. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences. 8. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, they removed part of the said precast wall, however, they have not completely removed the entire precast wall. When respondent No.2 questioned the same, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences. 8. That the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 had filed a suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005 and the same is pending before the competent Civil Court and when the said case is pending before the Civil Court, respondent No.2 is not entitled to lodge a criminal complaint to settle the civil dispute is concerned, respondent No.2 filed the above said suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005 seeking partition and allotment of respective shares against his family members only and respondent No.2 has not filed any civil suit against the petitioners. Mere pendency of the civil suit between the family members is not a ground for seeking quash the proceedings in the present crime. 9. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Anilakumari (supra) and Joseph Akkara and others (supra), the High Court of Kerala held that , when the civil cases are pending between the parties, initiation of the criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law and the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on the sole ground that respondent No.2 has not filed any civil case against the petitioners and the parties have not brought to the notice of this Court that civil cases are pending between them. 10. It is pertinent to mention that in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 11. In the present case, the investigation is not yet completed, therefore, at this juncture the Court cannot go into the merits of the allegations that are mentioned in the F.I.R. Therefore, premature conclusion based on facts mentioned in the FIR would amounts to abuse of process of law. It is already stated supra, that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they have encroached the land of 0-25 guntas covered by Sy.No.155 belonging to respondent and constructed a precast wall and they removed only part of the said precast wall and not removed the entire wall. Further when respondent No.2 questioned, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences. 12. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Limited (supra) , this Court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R.No.22 of 2025 on the file of Maheshwaram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this petition stand closed.