Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLRC/1219/2022 of GARINENI MURALI KRISHNA Vs PACHALLA SHIVA SHANKAR on 30 December 2022
SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1219 OF 2022 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the docket order in C.C.S.R.No.2825 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1219 OF 2022ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the docket order in C.C.S.R.No.2825 of 2022, dated 25.11.2022 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada.
2. The learned Magistrate dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the complainant has previously gave a report to the police, which was registered and FIR No.250 of 2017 was issued by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A8. The police after investigation filed charge-sheet only against A1 to A4 by deleting A5 to A8 and the said case is still pending. Now again on the same set of facts and after about 11 years of the alleged offences, this second complaint is filed. Hence, it is not maintainable on the principle of Double Jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor.
4. Without going into merits of the case, this Revision can be disposed of on the preliminary ground, whether the procedure prescribed under the Code is followed or not?
5. The learned Magistrate, instead of recording the sworn statement of the complainant, has dismissed the complaint on the ground that it comes within the purview of Double Jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to mention here that in pursuance of the deletion of the names of some Accused by the Investigating Agency in filing charge sheet on the first report given, the only option left for the complainant is either to file protest petition or to file a private complaint under Section 190 or 200 CR.P.C. Both the options are available for the de facto complainant. The option taken by the de facto complainant is to file a private complaint under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. The same would not come within the purview of Double Jeopardy as contemplated under Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to record the sworn statement of the complainant and of witnesses if any produced by the petitioner herein as prescribed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and shall pass orders in accordance with law.
With the above said direction, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision case shall stand closed.
___________________________
K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J
GR
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.1219 OF 2022
Date: 30.12.2022