ORDER : J. Sreenivas Rao, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. No. 7 of 2026 on the file of Indrakaran Police Station, Sangareddy, wherein the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 9 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 285, 270, and 223 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”). 2. Heard Mr.N.Joy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others are the owners and possessors of the property covered under Sy. No.114, admeasuring Ac.1–28 guntas, situated at Cheriyal Village, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy District. When respondent No.2 and others tried to interfere with the subject property, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others filed a suit in O.S. No.387 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, against respondent No.2 and six others, seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the suit schedule property. While the said civil suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint on 28.01.2026, alleging that the petitioners were obstructing the transportation of vehicles, causing inconvenience to the villagers, and damaging the Nakshabata, thereby giving a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. The nature of the allegations is purely civil in nature, and the present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to the civil suit. 4. He further submitted that the alleged Nakshabata is private land belonging to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others, and that the same forms part and parcel of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.2, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 175 of the BNSS, lodged the complaint. 5. He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS’), as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 , is proceeding with the matter, which is contrary to law. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another , (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 . 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, basing on the instructions furnished by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran Police Station, Sangareddy, dated 04.02.2026, submitted that the subject Nakshabata has been in existence for a long time and has been used by the villagers and others as a public pathway. The same is recorded as a public bata in the Gram Panchayat records as well as in the revenue records. The Giridawar, Kandi Mandal, and the Mandal Surveyor, after conducting a survey, submitted a report dated 28.01.2026, wherein it is stated that the Nakshabata is not private land. The petitioners, without having any manner of right, damaged the Nakshabata, thereby causing inconvenience to the Gram Panchayat of Cheriyal Village, villagers and other pattadars of Cheriyal Village. 7. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has already served notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.8 and 9 and is ready to serve notices to accused Nos.1 to 7; however, they are not available. He also submitted that the statement of L.W.1 has already been recorded and the investigation is in progress, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at this stage. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and two others have filed a suit in O.S. No.387 of 2025 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, against respondent No.2 and six others, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property mentioned therein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the alleged Nakshabata at Cheriyal Village is also part and parcel of the suit schedule property and their patta land. According to the prosecution, the Nakshabata has been used by the villagers for a long time and the same is recorded in the Gram Panchayat records as well as in the revenue records as Nakshabata and the same is not private property of the petitioner. According to the prosecution, the Nakshabata has been used by the villagers for a long time and the same is recorded in the Gram Panchayat records as well as in the revenue records as Nakshabata and the same is not private property of the petitioner. Whether the subject Nakshabata belongs to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and others, as claimed in the suit, or is it a public road as alleged by the prosecution, is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present case. 9. It is pertinent to mention that the issue involved in the case on hand, namely whether the petitioners damaged the existing nakshabata/pathway and obstructed the transportation of vehicles, thereby causing inconvenience to the villagers and neighbouring landowners of Cheiryal Village or not, has to be resolved during the course of investigation, especially since there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners and the investigation is under progress. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at the stage of crime. 10. In Md.Ibrahim supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that execution of a sale deed by a person claiming the property as his own, even if he has no title, does not amount to forgery under Sections 467 or 471 IPC, as it does not constitute making a “false document” under Section 464 IPC. The Court further held that cheating under Section 420 IPC is not made out in the absence of deception or dishonest inducement, particularly when the complaint is by a third party and not the purchaser. Criminal proceedings should not be used to give a criminal colour to civil disputes; accordingly, charges under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 504 IPC were quashed, while those under Sections 323 and 341 IPC were sustained. 11. The decision in Md. Ibrahim supra dealt with allegations arising out of execution of sale deeds and claims of forgery and cheating in relation to title over immovable property, which were found to be predominantly civil in nature. In the present case, the complaint discloses allegations of deliberate damage to Nakshabata land, obstruction to movement of vehicles, and interference with public and revenue property, based on official reports of the Girdawar and Mandal Surveyor. The offences alleged relate to acts affecting public order and public convenience and do not arise out of a dispute concerning execution of documents or title. The offences alleged relate to acts affecting public order and public convenience and do not arise out of a dispute concerning execution of documents or title. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. 12. It is trite law that the mere pendency of the civil suit is not a ground, especially civil suit is filed subsequent to the lodging of the criminal complaint and both are different and distinct. 13. 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. /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.” The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259 , which held that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that just because a transaction involves a commercial or monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out criminal intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings, stressing that criminal cases must proceed as per the Cr.P.C. and cannot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or authority of the civil forum. 14. The offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. 14. The offences levelled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Therefore, the Investigating Officer ought to have followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, as well as the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. 15. During the course of hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer had already issued notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.8 and 9 on 02.02.2026 and he will issue similar notices to the accused Nos.1 to 7. 16. In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to issue notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to accused Nos.1 to 7 and to strictly follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra.It is needless to mention that the petitioners are entitled to submit their reply/explanation, along with the documents available with them, to the Investigating Officer, including a copy of the plaint in O.S. No.387 of 2025, as soon as they receive notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.