1. This Criminal Revision Case which involves the scope of Section 258 Cr.P.C.(stoppage of criminal proceedings) is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by the petitioners-A.1 to A.3, having been aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 10.05.2013 of the learned Special Magistrate Court-II, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy district, in Crl.M.P.No.459 of 2013 in C.C.No.01 of 2013(Old C.C.No.48 of 2013) filed under Section 258 read with Section 251 of Cr.P.C. seeking to pass an order of their release.

2. The averments in the petition of the revision petitioners-A.1 to A.3 in Crl.M.P.No.459 of 2013 are that they are office bearers of an approved and registered gated community named Lalitha Bloomfield Home Owners Association (in brief the Association) comprising of 45 villas, situated in Survey No.4, Khajaguda, Ranga Reddy district. A.1 is the President, A.2 is the General Secretary and A.3 is the Facility Manager of the Association, that their communitys security gate is operated as per the procedure laid down by the Association with the approval of its members, that on 11.08.2011 the defacto-complainant and his men tried to grab their green belt/park area adjacent to Villa No.22 in their lay out and he did so at the behest of employer and developer of their(petitioners) lay out M/s Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, that they and other community members requested to stop the illegal construction in their green belt/park are but in vain, that they called up GHMC immediately who had come down and stopped the construction, that they then lodged formal complaints with GHMC and police but no action was taken yet, that they subsequently followed it up with a writ petition (W.P.No.23444 of 2012) with High Court and the High Court was pleased to issue a stay order on the same staying all constructions in the green belt and park area of their community including Villa No.22 and the matter is still pending with the High Court for final order, that the complainant herein has fabricated this false case to take revenge for preventing illegal encroachment by abusing the sacred judicial process, that Section 262 of Cr.P.C. clearly states the procedure to be adopted in Summary trials is same as the summons case and as per Section 258 of Cr.P.C. the procedure for summons case as provided XX includes the power to stop proceedings at any stage and release the accused if there are no sufficient materials on record against the accused, that no offences under Sections 339/341 and 503/506 is made out, that there is falsity of the police report and the witnesses statements, hence prayed to release them.

3. The learned trial Judge, on hearing both sides, through order dated 10.05.2013 dismissed the petition.

4. Impugning the said order, the accused filed this revision with the grounds that the order of the trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and probabilities of the case, that the trial judge failed to appreciate that neither the complaint, the witness statements nor the chargesheet show that the ingredients of the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 341 and 506 are present, that the trial judge failed to notice that the witness statements clearly show that none of the accused was physically present at the entry gate of Lalitha Bloomfield gated community and therefore the accused could not have committed the offences alleged against them, that the trial Court failed to notice that neither the complaint, the witness statements not the charge sheet shows that the complainant was alarmed or that there was any threat of injury to the complainant or any one else, that the trial Judge failed to see that none of the witness statements states that the accused were at Villa No.22 of Lalitha Bloomfield gated community at the time of the alleged incident, that the trial Court failed to see that Bhaskar, whose witness statement is sought to be relied on in the charge sheet, was not present on the date of which the offence wa