Telangana High Court
CRLRC/2556/2011 of Palampalle Jayabharatha Reddy Vs Tellakula Rama Chandra Rao on 29 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2556 2011 JUDGMENT:- This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners against the orders in Crl.R.P.No.31 of 2010 dated 14.11.2011 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. A private complaint was filed
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAOCRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2556 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:-
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners againstthe orders in Crl.R.P.No.31 of 2010 dated 14.11.2011 on the file of theFirst Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.
A private complaint was filed against the petitioners herein, whoare the accused in CFR No.1621 of 2010 on the file of the I AdditionalJudicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa and the said complaint wasdismissed without following the procedure under Section 200 of theCriminal Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by referring thematter to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. As against thatorder, the revision was preferred to the I Additional Sessions Judge,Kadapa and by his order dated 14.11.2011 has directed the Magistrateto follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.by referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to theconcerned police. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision isfiled by the accused persons.
The point for consideration is whether the order passed by thelearned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa is without jurisdictionand not legal?
POINT:
There cannot be any dispute about the fact that whenever aprivate complaint is filed, the Court can take up inquiry ascontemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. or refer the matter underSection 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Court by mere allegations in thecomplaint without examining the witnesses and to know the truth orotherwise of the statements or the contents in the complaint, cannot dismiss the same.
Therefore, evidently, the procedure adopted by the learnedMagistrate is against the spirit of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and alsoSection 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge hasonly cured the irregularity committed by the lower Court. The revisionpetitioners, who are the accused, at this stage, cannot complain thatthere is no order of acquittal in their favour or any other order tochallenge the procedure directed by the I Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, it is not a case where the provisions under Section 482 ofCr.P.C. this Court has to exercise the power to quash the proceedings,there is neither miscarriage of justice nor prejudice caused to thepetitioners by the order of the lower Court.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed of at thestage of admission.
___________________________
JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAODate: 29-12-2011INL/MR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
INL/MR
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2556 2011
Date: 29-12-2011