ORDER : E.V.VENUGOPAL, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2, 5, 10, 12 and 15 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram. 2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel representing on behalf of M/s.Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/1 st respondent and Sri Kireet, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the trial Court was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 427, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein and others basing on the crime in FIR No.226 of 2013, of Police Station, Maheshwaram, Cyberabad District, on a complaint lodged by Mucha Yadagiri Reddy, i.e. the 2 nd respondent herein and General Power of Attorney holder of one Gunuganti Ravindar Rao alleging that Wondarla Holidays Private Limited, which is the owner of adjacent lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, to whom the 2 nd respondent herein is the general power of attorney, by colluding with the pattadars and others encroached into the lands of said Gunuganti Ravindar Rao and damaged the boundary stones with a view to grab the said property. 4. Basing on the said allegations, investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court, which Court, upon taking cognizance, assigned CC No.604 of 2016 to the same. The contents of the said charge-sheet are as under : The 2nd respondent is the General Power of Attorney Holder of Gunuganti Ravindar Rao, who, purchased land admeasuring Ac.13-26 guntas in Sy.Nos.263, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 274 and 275 situated in Kongara Khurd-A Raviryal Village limits vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3042 of 2005. Since then Ravindhar Rao is in peaceful possession of the property, while his vendors were in possession of the property for the last 50 years. There is approximately 120 acres of land in the above survey numbers and all the 15 owners are in peaceful possession of their respective parts of the land. Since then Ravindhar Rao is in peaceful possession of the property, while his vendors were in possession of the property for the last 50 years. There is approximately 120 acres of land in the above survey numbers and all the 15 owners are in peaceful possession of their respective parts of the land. In the years 2011 and 2012 the representatives of "Wonderla Holidays Private Limited Company" approached and requested said Ravindhar Rao to sell the property to them. When Ravindhar Rao refused to sell the lands to them, Wonderla Holidays Pvt. Ltd. Company by conspiring with T.Sunil Kumar/A5, Raviryala villager G.Madusudhan Gupta-GPA holder of Wonderla and their vendors viz. (1) Smt.M.Sarala Kumari/A7, (2) Smt.M.Sunanda Raj/A8, (3) Smt.M.Vijaya Laxmi/A9, (4) Nimma Sujeevan Reddy/A4 and (5) A.Vijay Kumar/A6 along with the vendors and GPA holders of the documents bearing Nos.1637/2012, 1454/2012, 1455/2012, 1638/2012, 18/25/2012 and 691/2012, with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant's principal, cheated him by executing the above said registered documents showing boundaries differently from the link documents and got them registered at the SRO, Maheshwaram. Basing on the wrong boundaries shown in the above registered documents, Wanderla company criminally trespassed into the lands of Ravindhar Rao and removed the existing boundaries. Nimma Ravinder Reddy has assisted directly and indirectly for the criminal trespass and registering the documents with wrong boundaries. Further, Wonderlaw Holidays Limited filed a civil suit in OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Ravinder Rao seeking Injunction. Therefore the complainant has requested the police for necessary action against the above said individuals. 5. Basing on the allegations made in the above complaint, LW-22/M.Gangadhar, Inspector of police, Maheshwaram Police Station registered a case in FIR No.266 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 420, 447, 427, 482 and 120- (B) read with Section 34 IPC against the accused. Apart from crime in FIR No.226 of 2013, of Police Station, Maheshwaram, Cyberabad District another crime in FIR No.426 of 2013 was also registered basing on the private complaint lodged by the 2 nd respondent on the file of the Police Station, Pahadi Shareef, which was later transferred to Adibatla Police Station and re-registered as FIR No.99 of 2015. Hence, the acts of criminal trespass and damaging the boundaries in the lands of Ravinder Rao are clubbed and investigated into. Hence, the acts of criminal trespass and damaging the boundaries in the lands of Ravinder Rao are clubbed and investigated into. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid into the trial Court, which was numbered as CC No.604 of 2016 on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram. 6. Aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings, the petitioners preferred the present criminal petition seeking their discharge. The contention of the petitioners through this criminal petition is that the de-facto complainant is the alleged General Power of Attorney Holder of Guniganti Ravinder Rao who purchased land admeasuring Ac.13.26 Gnts., in different survey numbers of Kongara Khurd, Raviryal Village and that the petitioners herein purchased land which is overlapping with the alleged land of the principal of de-facto complainant. A perusal of contents of entire charge-sheet discloses a civil dispute and that the civil dispute cannot be given a cloak of criminal offence as an arm twisting device for achievement of some expectations of the de-facto complainant. Wonderla Holidays Limited, against whom the de-facto complainant made serious allegations, was not made as an accused. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the Directors of said Wonderla cannot be made vicariously liable for the offences under penal code and their implication is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petitioners/A10, A12 and A15 are only the attesting witnesses of sale transactions in favour of the company. The recitals of charge-sheet do not disclose any reason or ground to charge/implicate the petitioners and the investigating officer did not analyze the evidence. The owner of land viz. G.Ravinder Rao filed OS No.425 of 2015 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Wonderla seeking mandatory injunction and demarcation of land and that he also filed OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Wonderla seeking perpetual injunction and obtained an interim injunction dated 28.08.2013 in IA No.1253 of 2012. Canvassing the above grounds, learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to discharge the petitioners from the impugned criminal proceedings. 7. Canvassing the above grounds, learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to discharge the petitioners from the impugned criminal proceedings. 7. On behalf of the 2 nd respondent, a counter is filed mainly contending that assiduousness evidence collected during investigation speaks volumes about the unlawful, felonious and actionable crime committed by the petitioners and the trial Court after thorough perusal had aptly followed the process in accordance with law and after applying due diligence had taken cognizance of the offences and hence, there is no error on the part of the trial Court in such exercise. The contention of the petitioners that the issue is merely a civil dispute is absolute preposterous and distorted for the reason that the petitioners have unlawfully, consciously and malfeasantly executed and fabricated false documents to illegally and deplorably grab the land belonging to the principal of the de-facto complainant. The material evidence filed along with charge-sheet would clearly prove the criminal conspiracy and common intention among the petitioners in trying to illegally grab the property righteously belong to Sri G.Ravinder Rao. When the allegations of forgery, fabrication of documents and cheating are levelled against the petitioners the same cannot be simply termed as a civil dispute from any perspective and angle and incontestably the said crime is a fit case for comprehensive trial by the trial Court to bring the true facts out in accordance with law by recording justifiable evidence. The criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil in nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima-facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents and that in a criminal Court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be a mandate of law. Such a course cannot be a mandate of law. OS No.2202 of 2012 was filed by Wonderla Holidays Limited but not the principal of the de- facto complainant and pendency of the said suit is no way a bar to proceed with the criminal proceedings. While exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Court has to keep in mind that it should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of its accusation would not be sustained. This is a function of the trial Court. Though the judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment but the Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances in consideration before issuing process under Section 482 Cr.P.C., lest the Section becomes an instrument in the hands of accused persons to claim differential treatment only because the accused persons can spend money to approach higher forums. This Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short circuit a prosecution and to bring about its sudden death. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent relied upon the following decisions : 1. Sau Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 of Hon’ble supreme Court. 2. M.Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3014. 3. Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others , [ AIR 2001 SC 3846 ] 4. Gurdev Singh Kaler Vs. State of NCT of Delhi , [138 (2007) DLT 279 ] 5. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Limited and others , [(2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736] 8. This Court perused the entire material placed on record and heard the submissions made on either side and gave utmost consideration to the same. The crux of the case, as seen from the charge-sheet, is that the principal of the complainant viz. Guniganti Ravinder Rao purchased land admeasuring A.13.26 Gnts., in Sy.Nos.263, 235, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273, 274 and 275 situated at Kongarakurd-A Raviryal Village vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3042 of 2005 and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and his vendors were in possession of the same for the last 50 years prior to his purchase. The above said survey numbers consist a total land admeasuring Ac.120-00 Gts., under the possession of 18 members. During the year 2011-12 representatives of Wonderla Holidays Pvt. Ltd., requested to sell out the land for their business needs but the said Ravinder Rao refused for the same. Accordingly, the Directors of said Wonderla, by conspiring with the accused and others, with an intention to cause loss to Ravinder Rao, without verifying the documents, boundaries and extent illegally got registered sale deed documents bearing Nos.1637 of 2012, 1454 of 2012, 1455 of 2012, 1638 of 2012, 1825 of 2012 and 691 of 2012 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Maheshwaram and taking advantage of the said documents, have illegally and forcibly encroached into the lands of said Ravinder Rao and disturbed the boundaries. Accordingly, apart from approaching the civil Court, the said Ravinder Rao initiated the present criminal proceedings against the accused. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that contents of entire charge-sheet disclose a civil dispute and the same has been converted into criminal case to arm twist the accused and the same is glaringly evident from the act of the 2nd respondent in initiating civil proceedings vide OS No.425 of 2015 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Wonderla seeking mandatory injunction and demarcation of land. It is also evident from the record that perpetual injunction was granted as per orders dated 28.08.2013 in IA No.1253 of 2012 in OS No.2202 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District in respect of the subject land. 10. Howbeit, opposing the same, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent contended that assiduous evidence collected by the investigation speaks volumes about the complicity of the petitioners and that the unlawful, conscious and malfeasant acts of the petitioners in executing and fabricating the documents to illegally and deplorably grab the land of the principal of the de- facto complainant cannot be termed as civil natured acts and the same deserves comprehensive trial. The complicity of the petitioners, attracting the criminal liability, has to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. 11. The record goes to show that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined around 16 witnesses and collected documents. Further, there are civil suits pending with regard to the subject matter. The complicity of the petitioners, attracting the criminal liability, has to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. 11. The record goes to show that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined around 16 witnesses and collected documents. Further, there are civil suits pending with regard to the subject matter. It is an admitted fact that there are allegations and counter allegations advanced on either side. 12. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has to be exercised with care and in the exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court shall examine whether a matter which was essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredient required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare recording of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will constitute abuse of the process of the Court. However, it has not been laid down that merely because a civil suit is pending the criminal proceeding cannot simultaneously proceed or in view of mere pendency of civil proceedings, the criminal proceedings are to be stayed or quashed. When the facts of the case on hand are perused, the petitioners are alleged to have committed the acts of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and illegal trespass in to the lands of the de-facto complainant. In that view of the matter pendency of civil suits cannot bar the de-facto complainant from initiating criminal proceedings. It is pertinent to keep in mind that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are the subject matter of trial and without testing the same on the touchstone of the trial, their complicity or otherwise cannot be decided. It is further to be noted that crime in FIR No.426 of 2013 was also registered basing on the private complaint lodged by the 2 nd respondent on the file of the Police Station, Pahadi Shareef, which was later transferred to Adibatla Police Station and re-registered as FIR No.99 of 2015. 13. At this juncture, it is apt to mention herein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles of law as laid down in a number of judgments, including M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. 13. At this juncture, it is apt to mention herein that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principles of law as laid down in a number of judgments, including M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180 that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint, the criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and rarity than an ordinary rule, ordinarily the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police. However, the inherent power of the Court is recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 14. When the facts of the case on hand are tested with the guidelines enunciated supra and also the contentions advanced and allegations and counter allegations made on either side this Court is of the opinion that the same has to be tested on the touchstone of full-fledged trial and that without conducting full-fledged trial, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners will not meet the ends of justice and it is a premature stage to come to a conclusion on either way in this regard. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present criminal petition. 15. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.