The court found that the existence of a civil dispute and pending civil proceedings does not preclude the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings arising from the same facts, as provided by Section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the criminal proceedings were instituted for an ulterior or collateral purpose, or that the respondents acted with malice, bad faith, or outside their statutory mandate. The court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the legality and propriety of the process, not the merits of the prosecution or the sufficiency of evidence, which are matters for the trial court. The applicants did not establish that the decision to prosecute was tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Consequently, the court declined to grant orders of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, holding that the respondents acted within their constitutional and statutory powers and that the applicants' grievances should be addressed in the criminal trial process.