ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.660 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 24.07.2019 stating that she had purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.11.08 guntas in Sy. Nos. 464, 465 and 469, situated at the outskirts of Itikyala Village, Jagadevpur Mandal, through a registered GPA, after paying the entire sale consideration, and that she was inducted into possession. She claimed to be in continuous possession and had erected boundary pillars to prevent trespass and encroachment. She alleged that on 21.07.2019, the petitioners, along with about ten antisocial elements, unlawfully entered her land and erected a board, and threatened her with physical harm if she attempted to enter the land. She further stated that earlier, on 02.04.2019, the said petitioners had illegally ploughed the land with a tractor and threatened her with dire consequences when she objected. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.93 of 2019 was registered by the Jagdevpur Police Station, Siddipet District, against the petitioners. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Gajwel. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offence and renumbered the case as C.C.No.660 of 2019. 3. Heard Mr. Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1- State and Mr. S. Malla Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint and the final report, the dispute is purely civil in nature. Respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioners by making false allegations under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC by giving criminal colour to settle the civil disputes pending between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and others. 4.2. The husband of respondent No.2 and others offered to sell the property admeasuring 14.00 ½ gts. Respondent No.2 has implicated the petitioners by making false allegations under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC by giving criminal colour to settle the civil disputes pending between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and others. 4.2. The husband of respondent No.2 and others offered to sell the property admeasuring 14.00 ½ gts. and entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner No.1 on 02.04.2018. At the time of execution of the agreement of sale, petitioner No.1 paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance and subsequently paid an amount of Rs.48,20,000/- on 17.05.2018. The husband of respondent No.2 assured petitioner No.1 that his wife would sign the agreement of sale stating that she was out of station at that time. 4.3. When petitioner No.1 made several requests for execution of the registered sale deed in respect of the subject property, respondent No.2 and her husband did not come forward to execute the same. Consequently, petitioner No.1 issued a legal notice dated 23.04.2019 to execute the registered sale deed. As they failed to comply, petitioner No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2019 against respondent No.2, her husband and others seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.05.2018 and execution of the sale deed or in the alternative, a direction to refund the advance amount of Rs.51,25,000/- along with compound interest and other consequential reliefs. Along with the said suit, petitioner No.1 filed an application in I.A.No.250 of 2019 for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein from transferring or alienating the suit schedule property. The learned VI Additional District Judge at Siddipet, was pleased to grant an ad interim injunction on 15.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 approached this Court by filing C.M.A.No.6 of 2020, wherein the Division Bench of this Court granted interim suspension on 07.01.2020 and the said C.M.A. is pending. 4.4. He further submitted that after receiving the legal notice, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint by making false allegations that the petitioners had trespassed into the subject property. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 has paid a huge amount of Rs.52,20,000/- towards sale consideration to respondent No.2 and her husband and when a comprehensive civil suit is pending, to settle the civil dispute, respondent No.2, with an oblique motive, has filed the present complaint by making false and omnibus allegations. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 has paid a huge amount of Rs.52,20,000/- towards sale consideration to respondent No.2 and her husband and when a comprehensive civil suit is pending, to settle the civil dispute, respondent No.2, with an oblique motive, has filed the present complaint by making false and omnibus allegations. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others , (2000) 2 SCC 636 ; and 2. Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijaykumar , (2015) 1 SCC 513 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that respondent No.2 has not executed any agreement of sale as alleged by petitioner No.1 and that respondent No.2 is neither a signatory to the alleged agreement nor received any amount from petitioner No.1. The petitioners do not have any semblance of right or interest in respect of the subject property. However, they illegally trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 on 21.07.2019 along with other anti-social elements and they ploughed the subject land using a tractor and threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. 5.2. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint as well as in the final report, which attract the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of the witnesses, filed a final report on the role of the petitioners in ploughing the land of respondent No.2 using a tractor and in threatened her with dire consequences. 5.3. He further submitted that as on the date of lodging the complaint, no civil suit was pending and no interim order had been granted in favour of petitioner No.1. Mere pendency of a civil suit is not a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The nature of the allegations made in the criminal complaint and the allegations made in the civil suit are different and distinct, especially the injunction order granted by the trial Court in favour of petitioner No.1 was suspended by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.6 of 2020 and as on today, the injunction order is no more existing. The nature of the allegations made in the criminal complaint and the allegations made in the civil suit are different and distinct, especially the injunction order granted by the trial Court in favour of petitioner No.1 was suspended by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.6 of 2020 and as on today, the injunction order is no more existing. He further submitted that C.C. is ripe for trial and PW.1 has already been examined-in-part and the matter is posted for further examination of PW.1. The contentions and grounds raised by the petitioners are disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial and based on the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 5.4. He further submitted that the petitioners themselves admitted in the memorandum of grounds that respondent No.2 has not received any amount from petitioner No.1 and the alleged payment made to the husband of respondent No.2 does not create any right in favour of petitioner No.1 to claim the subject property, especially when respondent No.2 has not signed the alleged agreement of sale. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.660 of 2019. 5.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the orders of this Court dated 18.11.2025 in Crl.P.No.6378 of 2015 ( Mohammad M. Khalid, Hyderabad and two others v. Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another ). 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor adopted the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.2. Analysis 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. Even according to the parties, respondent No.2 is the owner of the agriculture land admeasuring Ac.11.08 ½ gts. covered by Sy.Nos.464, 465 and 469 situated at Itikayala Village of Jagadevpur Mandal, Siddipet District. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 24.07.2019 stating that the petitioners along with about ten other anti-social elements, illegally entered into her land on 21.07.2019 and erected a notice board and threatened her with physical assault if she entered the land. She further alleged that on 02.04.2019, petitioner No.1, along anti-social elements, illegally ploughed the above said land using a tractor and threatened her with dire consequences, when she obstructed ploughing the land. She further alleged that on 02.04.2019, petitioner No.1, along anti-social elements, illegally ploughed the above said land using a tractor and threatened her with dire consequences, when she obstructed ploughing the land. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.93 of 2019 was registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of LWs.1 to 6, filed a final report on 08.08.2019. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrte, Gajwel, took cognizance of the same and issued summons in C.C.No.660 of 2019 to the petitioners. 8. Petitioner No.1 claiming rights over the above said property based on the agreement of sale dated 17.05.2018 stating that he purchased the property from respondent No.2 under the said agreement and paid an amount of Rs.50,20,000/-. It is further claimed that the husband of respondent No.2 assured petitioner No.1 that respondent No.2 would sign the agreement of sale. When respondent No.2 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed, petitioner No.1 issued a legal notice dated 23.04.2019 and thereafter, filed a suit in O.S.No.41 of 2019 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Medak District, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale and alternatively, sought relief for refund of the amount along with accrued interest. 9. The record reveals that petitioner No.1 filed I.A.No.250 of 2019 in O.S.No.41 of 2019 for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants therein from alienating the suit schedule property and the learned VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, was pleased to allow the application and grant an interim injunction, by its order dated 15.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 had approached this Court by filing C.M.A.No.6 of 2020, wherein the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to suspend ad interim injunction granted in favour of petitioner No.1 on 07.01.2020 and the said appeal is pending. 10. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that the petitioners, without having any right or interest in respect of the subject property, trespassed into the subject property, whereas the case of petitioner No.1 that he is claiming rights through agreement of sale dated 17.05.2018. 11. 10. The specific case of respondent No.2 is that the petitioners, without having any right or interest in respect of the subject property, trespassed into the subject property, whereas the case of petitioner No.1 that he is claiming rights through agreement of sale dated 17.05.2018. 11. The issues as to whether petitioner No.1 has any right over the subject property and basing upon the agreement of sale dated 17.05.2018 whether he is entitled the reliefs sought in the suit O.S.No.41 of 2019, are all to be adjudicated in the suit only. 12. The scope of the present criminal petition is very limited and there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint and final report against the petitioners, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences. Whether the petitioners trespassed into the land of respondent No.2 and illegally ploughed the land using a tractor and threatened her with dire consequences or not; and whether the said allegations attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC or not, are disputed questions of fact and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court based on the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution and also defence side. 13. Insofar as other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of the allegations is civil in nature and the civil case is pending between the parties and therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law is concerned, it is trite law that mere pendency of a civil case is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, especially when there are specific allegations made in the complaint as well as in the final report, prima facie discloses cognizable offences. 14. In G. Sagar Suri supra and Rajib Ranjan supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court consistently held that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and the criminal law is invoked only to exert pressure or settle civil scores. The Court observed that mere breach of contractual obligations or disputes arising out of commercial or property transactions do not, by themselves, constitute criminal offences unless the essential ingredients of the alleged penal provisions are clearly made out. The Court observed that mere breach of contractual obligations or disputes arising out of commercial or property transactions do not, by themselves, constitute criminal offences unless the essential ingredients of the alleged penal provisions are clearly made out. It was further held that giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute amounts to abuse of the process of law, and in such cases, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in order to secure the ends of justice and prevent misuse of the criminal justice system. 15. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the present case, as the allegations are not confined to a civil dispute. The complaint specifically alleges criminal trespass, illegal ploughing of the land, erection of a notice board and threats of physical harm on 02.04.2019 and 21.07.2019. These allegations, if taken at face value, prima facie disclose cognizable offences. 16. In Mohammad M. Khalid supra, this Court at paragraph No.10, held as follows: “It is relevant to mention that in K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S . , (2020) 14 SCC 552 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well- settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. , (2002) 1 SCC 555 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal , (1999) 8 SCC 686 , to reiterate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a “civil profile” does not strip the act of its “criminal outfit.” Similarly in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the same principle, stating that civil and criminal proceedings may, in law, proceed simultaneously, a criminal prosecution can be sustained only where there is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction.” 17. The principle laid down in Mohammad M. Khalid supra squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The complaint contains specific allegations of criminal trespass and threats, and is not confined to a mere civil dispute between the parties. The allegations disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences, and the issues raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court supra, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.660 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gajwel, against the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case only. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the matter, in accordance with law. 20. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of the petitioners in C.C.No.660 of 2019 is dispensed with, unless their presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioners shall represent through their counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for their appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.