CRLRC/3270/2015 of Kodali Lakshmi Prasanna, Vs Goparaju Anjaneyulu on 31 December 2015

ORDER

The present criminal revision case is directed against theorder dated 23.04.2015 passed in C.F.R.No.2421 of 2014 inCr.No.51 of 2013 by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge,Narasaraopet, Guntur District.

2. Respondent No.1 herein filed a private complaint against thepetitioner/A1 and her GPA holder alleging that they sold plotNo.30, which was already sold to one Kasikanti Lakshmi KanthaSarma, to him with a malafide intention by receiving a sum ofRs.20,400/- under a registered sale deed dated 11.03.1996 and thesaid complaint was registered in Cr.No.51 of 2013 for the offenceunder Section 420 IPC against A1 and A2. After investigation, thepolice deleted the name of A1 in the charge sheet. Sincerespondent No.1 died, his legal representatives were added ascomplainants. Hence, respondents 1 to 5 filed the protest petitionto take cognizance against A1. By the order impugned, the trialCourt after considering the statement of respondent No.1 and thefinal report filed by the police, allowed the said petition and tookcognizance under Section 420 IPC against A1 and A2. Aggrievedby the same, A1 filed the present revision.

3. Heard and perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended thateven though the investigating agency deleted the name ofpetitioner/A1 holding that there is no incriminating material against her for the alleged offence, the trial Court ought not to have takencognizance against her.

5. The order impugned shows that the trial Court after perusingthe sworn statements of respondent No.1 and his younger brotherG. Nageswara Rao, who categorically stated that A1 and A2 soldthe plot to respondent No.1 after receiving the sale considerationand executed a registered sale deed in the year 1996 and also thereport filed by the police and 161 Cr.P.C.statement of K. LakshmiKantha Sarma, which disclose that on 30.03.1995 i.e., one yearprior to the registration of sale deed in favour of respondent No.1,A2 executed a registered sale deed for the same plot in favour ofK. Lakshmi Kantha Sarma, found prima facie case against A1 andtook cognizance against her for the offence punishable underSection 420 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trialCourt has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no needto interfere with by this Court. However, the petitioner is at libertyto file a discharge petition before the concerned Court. On filingsuch an application, the trial Court shall pass appropriate ordersafter hearing both sides. Till such time, the presence ofpetitioner/A1 is dispensed with before the trial Court except on thedates expressly directed by the trial Court and the petitioner shallberepresented by her counsel.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shallstand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

31[st] December, 2015sj