ORDER : E.V. Venugopal, J. 1. These Criminal Revision Cases are filed by the petitioners under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Since the parties to all these four criminal revision cases are common and the point to be decided is interconnected, this Court disposes of the same by way of this common order. (a) Criminal revision case No.831 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.134 of 2023 in C.C. No.3645 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. (b) Criminal revision case No.956 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order dated 29.012024 in Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2023 in C.C. No.3428 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. (c) Criminal revision case No.959 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.128 of 2023 in C.C.No.145 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. (d) Initially criminal revision case No.963 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.136 of 2023 in C.C.No.3654 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 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 in criminal petition No.6006 of 2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner not pressed the present revision against the 2nd respondent/2nd accused. The above referred criminal miscellaneous petitions are filed 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. 2. In all the above matters, this Court heard Sri C.Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Narender Naik, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent/State. 3. The trial Court dismissed the said applications as per orders referred above. 2. In all the above matters, this Court heard Sri C.Vikram Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.Narender Naik, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1st 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. Crl.RC No. CC No. Crime No. of PS Bachupally Offences under Sections Against 1 831 of 2024 3645 of 2020 464 of 2020 452, 427 and 506 IPC A1 to A4 2 956 of 2024 3428 of 2020 464 of 2020 448, 427 and 506 IPC A1 to A3 3 959 of 2024 145 of 2021 515 of 2020 448, 427 r/w.34 IPC A1 to A3 4 963 of 2024 3654 of 2020 458 of 2020 447 and 427 IPC A1 to A3 4. The case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheets laid by the investigating officer, which lead to registration of the above four crimes, succinctly, is that cases for the acts of house trespass, after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage with criminal intimidation the present criminal cases have been registered against the accused alleging that the villa and apartment owners, by forming into association viz. Hill County Villa Owners Association (HCVOA) and Hill County Apartment Owners Association (HCAOA) represented by Uday Bhaskar-President, Ramesh Devarakonda-General Secretary and Dr.Sunil circulated messages among the residents and mobilized funds without any authority to open a medical centre inside the club house which is a commercial space owned by M/s.Hill County Properties Ltd., (HCPL) with a view to deprive of revenue of HCPL in- spite of specific instructions to maintain as is condition and not to create problems to each other. (a) It is further alleged that on 31.07.2020 at about 11.00 hours, S.Rami Reddy-President of HCVOA restrained HCPL staff in to the club house and caused nuisance with a view to usurp the club land and later S.Rami Reddy, Anumolul Srinivasa Rao, Rajender Reddy and other residents objected the staff of HCPL and abused them in filthy language and threated with direct consequences. (b) It is also alleged that on 01.10.2020 at about 05.00 P.M. some of the residents of Hill County viz. (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 Gopal, Dr.Sunil and Mallikharjun criminally trespassed into the club house, broken the locks and threatened the security personnel with dire consequences, abused them in filthy language and caused damage of club property. (c) It is also alleged that on 02.10.2020 at about 16.00 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 100 persons criminally trespassed into the Club House, created nuisance, hungama and forcefully evicted the staff and 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 said offences and assigned calendar case numbers and after completing the required procedural aspects, proceeded with further. 6. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court, the above referred criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed by the respective petitioners/accused seeking their discharge mainly contending that they did not commit any offence much less the alleged offence and that they were falsely implicated in the present criminal cases without there being any ingredients to attract the offences with which they have been attributed and hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would cause irreparable loss and injury. 7. The said criminal miscellaneous petitions were vehemently opposed by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the Respondent/State mainly contending that the said applications are not maintainable in law and that the matters required full-fledged trial since the investigation revealed prima-facie material against the accused. 8. The trial Court dismissed the said applications holding that there is prima-facie case to proceed with trial against the accused as the material facts would come on record only after full-fledged trial and that there are no merits in the petitions to discharge the accused. 9. 8. The trial Court dismissed the said applications holding that there is prima-facie case to proceed with trial against the accused as the material facts would come on record only after full-fledged trial and that there are no merits in the petitions to discharge the accused. 9. Aggrieved by the orders of the trial Court, referred above, the petitioners in all these criminal revision cases have knocked the doors of this Court mainly contending that the orders of the trial Court are 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 100 persons trespassed into the club house and created nuisance and forcefully evicted the staff and security of HCPL and occupied the club house, the petitioners/ accused are only arrayed as accused without mentioning the names of the remaining persons and even the charge-sheet also 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 filed 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 material against the petitioners/accused to proceed with trial and the investigation went on biassed manner having been instigated by the complainant company and hence, the petitioners are liable to be discharged from the impugned criminal proceedings. 10. 10. In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these matters relied upon the decisions rendered in Tarak Dash Mukharjee and others Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and others , [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731] , Ram Prakash Chadha Vs.The State of Uttar Pradesh , [2024 AIR Supreme Court 3540] , Ram Rattan and others Vs.State of U.P. , [1977 AIR Supreme Court 619] and orders of Karnataka High Court in Crl.P.No.9698 -of 2018 contended that while deciding the application filed seeking discharge of the accused, the Court is bound to record reasons and the result should be based on record and rival contentions advanced on either side. He further contended that the accused cannot be entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same set of facts and allegations and the same cannot stand for legal scrutiny and it is nothing but violative of right of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 11. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1 st respondent/State and also the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/ complainant, who filed counters on behalf of 2 nd respondent, vehemently opposed the 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 sufficient material has been collected by the investigating officer 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 nd respondent, while contending above, relied upon the decisions rendered in Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs.The State of Karnataka and others, Crl.A.No.1285 of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9871 of 2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court, State of Tamilnadu Vs. R.Soundirarasu , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1150] , Hazrat Deen Vs. State of U.P. , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 178] and State of Rajasthan Vs. R.Soundirarasu , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1150] , Hazrat Deen Vs. State of U.P. , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 178] and State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap , [(2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 191] 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 trial and that if there are two possible interpretations and one raises suspicion, but not grave suspicion, the Court can discharge the accused. It is further contended that it is settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the Court must proceed on an assumption that the material which has been brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the said material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. 13. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent further contended that although there is perhaps not even an iota of doubt that a singular factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil as well as criminal nature means, that a single factual premise can lead to a dispute that is both civil and criminal in nature. In such cases, both civil and criminal proceedings can be pursued independently of each other. Criminal proceedings are not a shortcut to other remedies available in law. Learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent further contended that the present criminal revision petitions are filed beyond the limitation period and hence, they are not maintainable in the eye of law. The scope of revision is very limited, the petitioners cannot expect the High Court to conduct a mini-trial before the trial to be conducted by the trial Court. The petitioners can prove their innocence during trial by challenging the prosecution case. Since the petitioners are identifiable out of the mob barged into the club house, they were arrayed as accused and it is the duty of the petitioners to name out the other co-conspirators. Complaint copy reveal the 2 nd respondent as the authorized signatory for the complainant company. Since the petitioners are identifiable out of the mob barged into the club house, they were arrayed as accused and it is the duty of the petitioners to name out the other co-conspirators. Complaint copy reveal the 2 nd respondent as the authorized signatory for the complainant company. It is further contended that since the orders of the trial Court are made on sound reasoning and giving due consideration to the material 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 nd respondent along with others established Hill 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. The record further goes to show that there is a dispute in existence regarding the 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 the amenities therein like common areas, club, parking and commercial complexes managed by the HCPL but they cannot claim right over the same. The version of the petitioner/accused is that they were restrained from entering into the club house by the staff of HCPL and the version of the HCPL is that the petitioners along with others trespassed into the club house by broking the locks and caused damage to the facilities in the club house. 16. Contentions and rival contentions are advanced on both sides to support their respective cases. 16. Contentions and rival contentions are advanced on both sides to support their respective cases. Section 239 of Cr.P.C., enunciate that if, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 of Cr.P.C., and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. But in the cases on hand, the prosecution upon completion of investigating laid charge-sheets alleging that the petitioners/accused along with a group of people have committed criminal trespass, created nuisance, hungama and forcefully evicted the staff and 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. However the said allegations are the subject matters of trial and 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 cannot shield the accused from facing the criminal trial. Civil and 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 mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. 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 finding 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 the same since this Court sees no apparent error warranting interference under the revisional powers. 19. In view of the above discussed factual matrix, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present criminal revision cases are liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, Criminal Revision Case Nos.831, 956, 959 and 963 of 2024 are dismissed. 21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any pending stand dismissed.