The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C. Vikram Chandra Counsel for the Res oondent No.1: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Reslcondent No.2: Sri D. Narender Naik Criminal Revision l ase No.956 of 2024 crimin€rl Flevision fired under Section 43g & 442 of BNS{i ag1:rleved by the order dated ilg 01 2c24 passed in crr.M.p.No.135 of 2a23 ir ,1. I No.342g of 2020 on the flle of h3 court of the principal Junior civil Jrdge.cum.):l Additional Metropolitan l/lag rs rate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. Between:

1. Solipur:rm Ii arn i Redd Business. R/) Vill No.1 Diskict. y,^ Slo Nqlasimha Reddy. Age 53 /ears, Occ: 60, Road No.03, Hitt Couhty -Bachu6 atiy. Medchat

2. AnumolJ Srirr,,as Rao S/o.Nageshwar Rao, Age_57 yeerrs ()<:c_Business, R/o.Rd.\c 22 rliI County. s;chipiiiv, Meoin'"idiltriit

3. Kathi F:ajl-ca Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Age 57 yea,s r)rc_Business, R/o.Vill: Nc 2 3,i Hilt Cbunty, Bachupaily, Medctat Disrrict AND ...Petitioners/Accu se,d No.1 to 3 1 State of Terl.angrrna, through its public prosecutor, High Court at li,/derabad, through P. S Etachupally. Bhanurrur.h', S/o Late K. Bhaskar, Age 60 years, Occ Business. Hill Countv Properr) L n t?(i. Bachupaly, Medchal-Distri6t ...nesponoentil:!l,rpfii,ii'ii 2 IANO:3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stateo in ine affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pi"r."i t"-Oi.pense with tne fresence of petiti_oners/Accused No.1 to 3 arising in lonnection wiin c.C.uo.s+ 28'of 2O2O on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Jrlo"-Cu*-xr Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District' at Kukitpally pending disposal of the above case' lA NO:4 oF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying thai in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition'-the High Court mgy be. pi"r."O to tt"V all further pto"."iingt in C C No..3428 of 2020 on the file of " - - - - principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, frrr"OcflJ-fr/arf.ajgiri District, at Kukatpally' pending disposal of the above case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C. Vikram Chandra Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri E' Ganesh' Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No'2: Sri D' Narender Naik Criminal Revision Case No.959 ot 2O24 Criminal Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS aggrieved by the order dated 2g-01-2024passed in Crl M P No'128 of 2023 in C C No I45 of 202 1 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally' Between: District. '1 Soliouram Rami Reddy, S/o Narasimha ..F"!dy aot 58 vears Occ ' illine;r,' idvirr J' r,ro]ibo"'io.d-ilo oi, n irr corinty, "aacnupdtly, Medchal 2. Kommareddi Ratna Gopal, S/o Dasaradha. Ramaiah' {g", Z.g years' Occ: - iil;id., R/o. tvtaytas,-f,itt'county, Bachupally' Medchal District' 3' Ahumuda Srinivas Rao, S/o. Nageshwar Rao, Ag9:pI years, occ: Business, " iii;Vili; N;. rail Hiri Co,ntv, Ba6hupallv' Medchal District ...Revision Petitioners/Accused no'1 to 3 AND 1 2 State of Telangana, Through its Public Prosecutor' High Court' Hyderabad' *X%l'ff :"&,tJ,',:)[id',h,rlx^oHLil:ff ?.iP'iF?13h"?'?i*S?ll'H3il Hoi,rse, Hyderabad. ... Responden ts /Com plainant lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition unlr:r Section 52g of BNSS praying that in the (ircumstances stated in th3 af{i iavit filed in support of tne pdtiti6n, the tligh C"r; ;; b" pleased to disrren;* with the presence of petitionersAicuseo No. .o 3 arising in connection rviflr r3.o. No.145 of 2021 on the fite of ion,ole principal Ju;io; iivii Judge-cum-Xr AdJitionar Metroporitan rrrr.gi&rrL, M"icnar -l,latrz,lg iri District, at Kukatpatly, F,endrrg disposat of the above;r;;.'-' - --" lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition unrrer section 52g of BNss praying that in the c rcumstances stated in th* afficavit filed in supaort of the p6titi"on, the Figh ar;;i ;;;iJ pl-e_ased to s:a!.at .,urther proceedings arising in ,,ryith C.C.No.145 of 2021 on the fi e 'rf Honourabre prin-cipar lrii.,. cirir'l..rdge.cun -.a Additionar K ukat :,a,y. p;;i;;; lf$..""J": r"ocnat -N,rattalsrri "onn".t,on - -bi'tii"t, ij? ?r J!1l i]jX,j;" Counsel for the, pe titioners: Sri C. Vikram Chandra Counsel for ihe RespondentNo.l: Sri E.Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutor Counsel for the Res pondent No.2: Sri D. Narender Naik Criminal Rev lS l,)ll l;rse No-9 63 ot 2024 Criminirl flevision filed under Section 43g & 442 of BNS[j agrrr eved by the order dated 1t-9 A1 2)24 passed in Crl.M.p.No.136 of 2023 ir rl.; 11o.36U0 o, 2020 0n the fire of th: court of the principar Junior civir Judge-cum.).r Additionar Metropotitan I\/aEislrate, Medchal_Malkajgiri District at Kukatpal,y. Between: 1 2 B. Uday Bhas k ar. S/o. Sitha Ramachandra Raju. Aoe. 50 ),ears, Occ. Busrness Rrc g_D. Nainitat Hiil County, eichJpatii]i/eOXirar oisrict. [,il8'J'r'i3]i l,. if,i311.,}1"#f, [i5 r:il[t.A!R,i?.[", " o :;c : B usiness Dr.Chinti S,un Kumar. S/o R No 267, Hj r c >unty, ,r.nro;flflirff&rtB?;f,l",l*", occ Do::t':r, R/o ViIa (Revisio r ega'r:it petitioner No 2. is not pressed as proceedirgs irgainst him is quasheo u'rd:' s:uisuant to crrp.No.oob6 ;iroid;ijfiIL i ro. ra_zozz11 AND ...petitioners/Accus ed No.1 to 3

1. State of Telangana, through its Public Prosecutor Telangana High Court' 2. Bhanumurthv, S/o. Late K. Bhaskar, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, Hill County Propery Limited, Bachupally. Medchal District. ...ResPondents/GomPlainant IA NO: 3 0F 2024 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pieaseO to dispense with the presence of Petitio-ners/ .Accused No.1 to 3 in connection with C.C. No.3654 oi 2O2O on the file of Honble Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- xl Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally pending disposal of the above case. lA NO:4 OF 2024 Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances Statedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybe- pieased to stay all further proceedings arising in connection with C.C.No.3654 of )ozo on the file of prin-ipal Junior civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional lrlltropotltan [Iagistrate, Medchal-tilalkajgiri District, at Kukatpally pending disposal of the above case. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C' Vikram Chandra Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri E. Ganesh' Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri D. Narender Naik The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE, HC]N'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIIIINAI, REII/ISION CASE Nos.83 1 956 959 and 963 of 20.24 COMMON ORD I}R. l. The se (l:: minal Revision Cases are filed b1. the petitioners under Seclions ,l ]:3 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Sur.akshl Sanhita (BNSS). Sinr:e th: parties to all these four criminal revisio r cases are common anc 1.he point to be decided is interconnected , t ris Court disposes of th e seirn e by way of this common order. (a) Criminrrl r,:r ision case No.g31 of 2024 is file,l by the petition crs 7'r Lc cused Nos.7 to 4 aggrieved b1. the o:cler dated 29.O7.2O'..'A :irssed in Crl.M.p.No.134 of 2023 in C.C.. N0.3645 of 2o2o Ltt r'h.e rire of the learned principar Junior ci.ril Jucge-cum- XI Addi -iona i VTe tropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, rlyfu, :rabad. (b) Crimina.l r'e r-ision case No.956 of 2024 is f,rier I by the petition 3rr; //i r cused Nos. I to 3 aggrieved by th: o -der dated 29.O12(t2.+ irr Crl.M.p.No. 135 of 2023 in C.C. No.3z,2B >l 2O2O on the hle ,rI rire learned principal Junior C:vil Juc g:_cum_Xl AdditiorLa I lr4 :r ropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyk,era re.d. (c) Criminal r.e,,ision case No.959 of 2024 is hle<r by the petitionersi/ a:r:used Nos. 1 to 3 aggrieved by thr: or d:r dated 29.O7.2t)21 ir Crl.M.p.No.128 of 2023 in C.C.No. t.IS <,f 2O2t on the file r,f J'Le learned principal Junior Civil Jr,rdg<:_cum_Xl Additional NIr:r ropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberal.ad. (d) Initially c.iro irral revision case No.963 of 2024 isr fi1,:c by the petitione rs/arx.used Nos. 1 to 3 aggrieved by the or:k:r dated 29.O7.2Ct2.1 ;rr Crl.M.p.No. 136 of 2023 in C.C.No.3654 cf 2O2O on I ., I t 2 the lile of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xl Additional Metropolitan Megistrate, Kukatpally' Cyberabad' Subsequently, the proceedings against the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 were quashed by this Court as per order dated 16.08. 2022 it criminal petition N'o'6006 of 2O2O ' the learned counsel for the petitioner not pressed the present revision against the 2nd respondent/2'd accused' The above referred criminal miscellaneous petitions are {iled under Section 239 Cr.P.C. by the respective petitioners/ accused in respective cases seeking their discharge from the charges levelled against them' The trial Court dismissed the said applications as per orders referred above. In all the above matters, this Court heard Sri C'Vikram Chandra' 2. learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D Narender Naik' learned counsel for the 2'd respondent and Sri E'Ganesh' Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1"t respondent/ State'

3. The facts pertaining to all these criminal revision cases are correlated with each other and for the sake of brevity' the particulars are tabulated hereunder : S No 1 2 3 4 Crl.RC No CC No. 837 of 2O24 956 of. 2024 959 of 2024 963 of 2024 3645 of 2O2O 3428 ot 2O2O 145 of 2O2l 3654 of2O2O Crirne No. of PS Bachupally 464 of 2O2O 464 of 2O2O 515 of 2O2O 45a of 2Q2O t \ Offences under Sections 452 427 and 06 IPC 444 427 and 506 IPC 44 8 427 r PC 447 and 427 IPC 4 I Against A1 to A4 A1 to A3 A1 to A3 A1 to A3 3

4. The ce.sr ol l:he prosecution, as per the charge,sh eet:, .aid by the investigating olfice::, which lead to registration of tht: abtve .cur crimes, succinctly, is tazrr r:ases for the acts of house trespass, after preparation for hurt, assiarrlt r:r wrongful restraint, mischief causirrg d anage with criminal intim dat,on the present criminal cases have bce,r registered against the lc cur;r.d alleging that the villa and apilrtrr ent c wners, by forming intc irssociation viz. Hili County Villa Own:rs .A ssociation (HCVOA) and FIil County Apartment Owners Assoc aticn (HCAOA) represented ty t-Ll:5' Bhaskar-President, Ramesh Dt:varrrkot Lc.a-General Secretary and Dr.l-iunil circulated messages among tht: t.e.;ilents and mobilized fu,ds r.itirout any authority to open a medrcrl c:rLtre inside the club house v.lrich is a commercial space owned by 14/s.Hill County Properties Ltd., llI(lPL) with a view to deprive of re:venue t,f HCpL in_ spite of specrific rnstructions to maintain as is c<lndit,on aed not to create proble ms k , (-.ach other. (a) It is fu.rthe, alleged that on 3L.OT.2O2O at about 1. .rJO hours, S.Rami Redd g- !)re srdent of HCVOA restrained HCpL stalf in to the club house and cluserl nuisance with a view to usurp the clutr land and later S.Rami RedrJ y. Anumolui Srinivasa Rao, Rajender Redd,/ and other residents objr:o.erl the staff of HCPL and abused then in filthy language and threated rvi tLL d irect consequences f' i,.; 4 (b) It is also alleged that on 01'10'2020 at about 05'00 P'M' some of the residents of Hill county viz. Sai Reddy, Ratna Gopai, Dr'Sunil and Mallikharjun criminally trespassed into the club house' broken the locks and threatened the security personnel with dire consequences' abused them in frlthy ianguage and caused damage of club property' (c) It is also alleged that on 02 'lO '2O2O at about 16'0O hours' at Club House, Hill County, Bachupally Village and Mandal' Medchal District, the EC members and residents of Hill County Villa Owners Association (HCVOA) and Hill County Apartment Owners Association (HCAOA) numbering to about 1OO persons criminally trespassed into the Club House, created nuisance' hungama and forcefully evicted the staff ald security of M/s'Hill County Properties Ltd'' (HCPL)' Hyderabad and occupied the club house' Further' the said mob prevented the staff of HCPL from entering into the premises and gain entry to the assets' machinery and equipment lying inside the club house'

5. Basing on the above allegations' the investigating officer conducted investigation and upon examining the material witnesses and relevant documents, has laid charge-sheets against the accused alleging that they are liable to be prosecuted for the offences' as tabulated supra, for their acts' The trial Court has taken cognizance of the sai{ offences and assigned calendar case numbers and after completing the required procedural aspects' proceeded with further' ' ) \ \ 5

6. During the :,rurse of proceedings before the trial Cour , the above referred crirrinal nriscellaneous petitions were filec by the, respective petitioners/ a:c rs;r:c seeking their discharge mainly crrntenCing that they did not itornut any offence much less the alleged olfen;r and that they were fal;e1y irplicated in the present criminal <:ase,; rvir-t.out there being any ingredie nts to attract the offences with which ihr:y l12rr" 6.., attributed anC he:rc:e, continuation of the criminal proce eclir r6,s against them would caL sr: ir.reparable loss and injury.

7. The said c nminal miscellaneous petitions u.e:.e ,,ehemently opposed by iearrrcd Assistant public prosecutor repres,:rLting the Respondent/ lite_te ntainly contending that the said aoplic:a1.i(,ns are not maintainable ir litr,,, and that the matters requi.erl fu11_flr:dged trial since the inve sti grLtion revealed prima-facie materia a1:;ainst the accused.

8. The trial o.* ri dismissed the said applications hotcting t rat there is prima-facie casio to proceed with trial against the at:cus,e,l as the material facts rv.ull come on record only after full-fleriged trirl and that there are no rrerirs in the petitions to discharge the accus,.d,

9. Aggrieved b.y the orders of the trial Court, referr,:d r;.bove, the petitioners in ell th e se criminal revision cases have knoc ked tJre doors of this court :rririn S contending that the orders of trre tiia.l court are I I 6 contrary to the principles of settled law and facts; the trial Court failed to consider the fact that though the complaint discloses that HCVOA and HCAOA, EC members and residents about 1OO persons trespassed into the club house and created mrisance and forcefully evicted the staff and security of HCPL and occupied the club house' the petitioners/ accused. are only arrayed as accused without menLioning the names of the remaining persons and even the charge-sheet aiso silent in this regard; the complaint copy or the FIR are silent regarding the representative of the complainant company; the trial Court without giving cogent and convincing reason has erroneously held that the grounds urged by the accused seeking their discharge are not on sound lines; the accused are innocent persons and they have not committed any acts attracting the offences alleged against them; civil dispute regarding ownership of club house is pending adjudication before the civil Court but the said issue has been given a criminal cloak; though the recitals of complaint show that the matter is subjudice before the NCLT, Mumbai, no piece of paper is hied along with complaint; there is a delay in lodging the complaints; when the facilities are locked by the HPCL and they kept the keys with them, there will not be any possibility either for the petitioner or any others to occupy the same or to damage the facilities; there is nothing in the charge-sheet regarding recovery of damaged property by the investigating officer; omnibus and false allegations are made against the petitioners; there is no prima-facie It"- ' 'i-,;x;*ffil'- - ': :]j 7 material agirirsr r he petitioners/accused to proceed wittL riar and the investigation ,r,,e tt. on biassed manner having been rnsdgr,ated by the complainan - lc,rn oany and hence, the petitioners a re irrble to be discharged lion-r JLe impugned criminal proceedings.

10. In suJrp.rt of their case, learned counsel for t he peril ic,ners in all these matte rs r:lied upon the decisions render,:d jn lla,rak Dash Mukharjee :rnd others Vs.State of Uttar pradesh and othersr, Ram Prakash Chadha ti/s.The State of Uttar pradesh2, Ram Rattan and others Vs.State of U.p.a and orders of Karnataka High Court in CrI.P.No.9698 -of 2OIg contended that whiie decicling the e pplication hled seeking discharge of the accused, the court is bcu.n,1 to record reasons and the r-'r;urt should be based on record a.cl .val :.ntentions advanced on ei.,her side. He further contended that ihe itci-:sed cannot be entangled ir rr r:.ltiple criminal proceedings for the sa me s,lt of facts and aliegatio;rs ar Lr.. the same cannot stand for 1egal scrut_ir y and it is nothing but vio a[iv ] of right of the accused under A.trcle s 2 . tnd 22 of the Constitulon o India. 1 i . On the ot hel hand, learned Assistant public pr,rsecutor lor the l st respondent/ S ta ter rrnd also the learned counsel for the 2,rd rr s:ondent/ complainant, r,,zh.r filed counters on behalf of 2,,t r, :spondent, ' 2022 LiveLaw (SC) ,11 '2024 AIR Supreme :o rrt35rO r 1977 AtR Supreme :orrrt 61! ,/ ) 1 { i I I 8 vehemently opposed tJre present criminal revision cases mainly contending that the orders of the trial Court are based on material available on record, decisions relied upon by the parties and upon hearing both sides and with sound reasoning' hence' the said well- reasoned orders cannot be interfered with. They further contended that during investigation sufhcient material has been collected by the investigating ofhcer to establish the complicity of the accused and hence, without subjecting the said material to the trial and letting the accused to face the trial, the accused cannot be declared as innocent at this premature stage

12. The learned counsel for the 2'd respondent' while contending above, relied upon the decisions rendered in Mitesh Kumar J'Sha State of Tamilnadu Vs' Vs.The State of Karnataka and othersa' of U.P.6 and State of R.Soundirarasus, Hazrat Deen Vs' State Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar KashyapT and contended that while deciding a discharge petition the Court can sift and weigh the evidence' but it shouldn't conduct a detailed examination or weigh the evidence as if it were conducting a full tria-l and that if there are tvr'o possible interpretations and one raises suspicion' but not grave suspicion' the Court can discharge the accused' It is further contended that it is o cr1.e.ruo.1285 of 2021 arising out of sLP (crl ) No 9871 of 2019 of Hon'b 5 2022tCC OnLine SC 1150 6 2022 GCC OnLine SC 178 '(zoz tt srpr"r" court cases 191 le Supreme court \ \ 9 settled prinril)lo .f law that at the stage of considering ,ar L application for discharlJe tL e Court must proceed on an assurnpti,rrl that the material which tas been brought on record by the prc,secrrlion is true and evaluat,: t h e r;aid material in order to determi.e whertl Le r the facts emerging fronr .LLe material taken on its face valu e, , lisclose the existence of the in;lredients necessary of the offence alleged.

13. The learnel counsel for the 2.d respondent furthel contended that althougr r.her. is perhaps not even ar iota of d.ubt the t a singurar factual premisr: r:zrn give rise to a dispute which is b.th, cf a civil as well as criminal natule means, that a single factual pre,mise ,:e n lead to a dispute that is b,rth civil and criminal in nature. In sr-Lch :irses, both civil and critni nzrl proceedings can be pursued independr:rt.y of each other. Crim n:rl proceedings are not a shortcut lo otl161 remedies available in 1:r', l,earned counsel for the 2.d resp.n,Cr nt further contended that t.he present criminal revision petitions are f le d beyond the limitation peri t<l and hence, they are not maintarnable ir L lhe eye of law. The sco,e of r:r,ision is very limited, tl,re petitioaers crar..r ot expect the High Court to <.onduct a mini_trial before the trial tc tre conducted by the trial ()orrrt The petitioners can prove their inn oce r<:e during trial by chall:ngirg the prosecution case. Since the r)etiricners are identifiabie or_rt c,1 [he mob barged into the club house, they were arrayed as acourlec rrnd it is the duty of the petitioner.s to nar n l out the I '.:.- .. 10 other co-conspirators' Complaint copy reveal the 2'd respondent as the authorized signatory for the complainant company' It is further contended that since the orders of the tria-l Court are made on sound reasoning and giving due consideration to the materia-i placed before' the present criminal revision cases are liable to be dismissed'

14. This Court perused the material available on record including the impugned orders of the trial Court and heard the rival contentions advanced on ether side. The record goes to show that the 2'd respondent along with others established Hili County Properties Limited (HCPL), which is a real estate company and it being the developer of the property, constructed club house and the petitioners/accused purchased flats and villas in the said project and subsequently formed into association along with other residents in the name of HCAOA and the said association claimed right to use the club house and when they were restricted, as per the allegations, they have criminally trespassed into the club house and damaged the facilities'

15.Therecordfurthergoestoshowthatthereisadisputern existence regarding ttre usage of club house by the residents 'of the villas and flats and their claiming right over the club house' The statement of witnesses show that the project is a HUDA approved layout and all the villa and flat owners have right to enjoy tJle amenities therein like common areas, club, parking artd commerciai comPlexe,s,, l I 11 managed by the.F'CpL but they cannot claim right over th,: same. The version of th(. p e litioner/accused is that they w:re restr-eiined from entering into t he c lub house by the staff of HCpL and the vt rrsion of the HCPL is thaI the ;,etitioners along with others trespass,:d irtto the club house by br:king the locks and caused damage to the faciliries in the club house. 76' conterrti'i)rrsi and rivar contentions are advanced on b,rth sides to support their rr:spe ctive cases. Section 239 of Cr.p.C... errun.iirte that if, upon consid:r ng lhe police report and the docurnen,s s,rnt with it under section 7i, cf Cr.p.C., and maling such exaztintrtior r, if any, of the accused asr lllo Magistrate thinks necessary and e fter 1;iving the prosecution ard the accused an opportunity of beitg r,:ard, the Magistrate ccnsrick:rs the charge against the accusecl to be 5.,r:undless, he sha1l dischargr' the accused, and record his reasonr; rb: so doing. But in the c::se,; on hand, the prosebution upon ccnrpletion of investigating lad c earge-sheets alleging that the petiti,)ner s/accused along with a [ir( uF r>f people have committed criminal trespa.is, created nuisance, hu rgar a and forcefully evicted the stalf arrd :,e:uritJr of M/s.Hill CourrtJ Ir -operties Ltd., (HCPL), Hyderabad and ocr:tpied Lhe ciub house. Iurtlter, the said mob prevented the staff of Fj()pL from entering into the pr.emises and gain entry to the assets, nraclrinery and equipment lyirLg insi<le the club house. However the said zLileg er.ions are I I I I I I I T2 the subject matters of trial arld without subjecting the same to the test of trial, it cannot be decided in either way' There is nothing on record to reject the charge-sheets at the threshold naming them as groundless'

17. The grounds urged through these criminal revision cases have no force warranting interference of this Court' Pending civil proceedings cannotshieldtheaccusedfromfacingthecriminaltrial.Civiland criminal proceedings can run parallel and are not dependent upon each other. There is no bar in registering different FIRs against the accused for their distinct acts. The contentions advanced on either side are the triable issues and they cannot be decided prematurely' Proposition of law is very clear that review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistakeorlikegraveerrorhascreptineariierbyjudicialfallibility.

18. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C', is extremely limited and it should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law' or the frnding recorded by the trial Court is based on no evidence' or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge' When the impugned orders are perused, there is nothing on record to set aside tnt "tT:--"1rrce t \ \ \ 13 Court see'; n,l apparent error warranting intr:rferen.cr) under the revisional tr)o\.irer s 19- In vir:u' of t.ee above discussed factual matrix, this c,: rrt is of the considered otr,irrion that the present criminal revisi()n caser irre liabre to be dismissc d. 20 In tht: r'es;rrlt. Criminal Revision Case Nos.g31 , gi6, )1jg and 963 ol 2024 are di srn is;sed

27. As a sr:qr el, miscellaneous applications if an1 peeling stand dismissed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I. NI,G,A LAKSHMI JOIN'T REGISTRAR \. To, ge-cum-Xl Magist'at3, Magistrat,:. I katpally, Cyberabad t/ r-.dcha I-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpall V SECTION OFFICER 1. The l)rircil::rl Junior Civil Jud diticnal Vletropolitan 2 The L,\dc irional J unior Civil Judge-cum_X Additional lvletropolitan 3. The stirtion r-lruse officer, Bachupa[y police station, cybera b rd District. 4. Two C(ls to the pubric prosecutor, tiigh court for the State orrerangana 5. One C(; t(, .S1 C. Vikram Chandra, Advocate IOPUCI 6. One C(: t(' S;,r l) Narender Naik. Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two C[) Copr,.{; at Hyderabarl [OUT] Ad v .(. HIGH COr.'R't- DATED:2Ct102,12025 COMMON OR.DER .,:=1 1 :.i'"-i>a I lE .s ,4 13 "uil 2W ci..\ (f I ) : \ 'ij CRLRC.Nc,s,831, 956, 959 and g63 of 2024 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES t