1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.198 OF 2022
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the petitioner/de facto complainant, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.400 of 2021 in C.F.R.No.964 of 2021, by the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa.
2. A private complaint is filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the respondents/ A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa. It is stated in the complaint that the de facto complainant was appointed as Muthavalli of Dargah Hazarat Syed Shah Ali Murad (Sunni), Kadapa. The said appointment was objected by A1. Because of his political influence the appointment was withheld by the A.P. State Wakf Board. Then the de facto complainant 2 preferred a Writ Petition in W.P.No.15910 of 2019 before this Court and obtained stay order against the proceedings of the Wakf Board and thus he has been continuing as Muthavalli. The A1 since has been disturbing and causing hindrance to him in performing his lawful duties, he preferred Writ Petition in W.P.No.21425 of 2019 for police security in conducting Urs, wherein this Court directed the Station House Officer of Taluk Police Station, Kadapa to provide security/bandobasth on 02.1.2020. He has also given a report to the police against the interference of the accused in the affairs of Dargah and its developmental activities and their attempt to trespass with the support of antisocial elements and political support and especially when the accused tried to interfere in Moharrum Flag Hoisting on 10.8.2021. On 10.8.2021 at about 7.00 p.m., the A1 to A3 and their henchmen forcibly trespassed into the Dargah and obstructed him from discharging his legal duties as Muthavalli. When he resisted them, the A2 and A3 caught hold of his collar 3 and slapped him and also they broke his eye glasses and threatened him stating that they will kill him if he does not withdraw from the Dargah. The police did not take action on his earlier report and hence the said incident took place. The accused were earlier convicted in C.C.No.86 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 295 and under Section 506 (1) IPC. Since the police did not register the case, he filed the private complaint praying to forward the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to police for registration and investigation.
3. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa instead of invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner/complainant and after hearing him, passed the impugned order holding that there is no assault against public servant and there is no supporting evidence that the accused have criminally and caused hurt or threatened the complainant and in fact the dispute is only of civil in nature and hence it would be 4 waste of time to proceed further against the accused and thereby refused to take cognizance of the offence and dismissed the complaint.
Being aggrieved by the said order, this Revision Case is preferred.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.4 and perused the record.
5. Learned Magistrate has gone overboard in making observation that the complaint was not supported by evidence since no witness is examined by the complainant in support of his statement. According to the learned Magistrate the facts are not satisfactory to attract the ingredients of the alleged offences and that the dispute is civil in nature. The order of the Magistrate in coming to conclusion that no prima facie is made out is illegal when the de facto complainant/accused trespassing into the Dargah and beating the de facto complainant. The learned Magistrate for want of 5 supporting evidence cannot dismiss the complaint. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is premature and when accusation has been made out as against the accused that they trespassed and have obstructed the de facto complainant while discharging his official duties and thereafter the Accused beat the de facto complainant., it is a matter where the trial has to be conducted in respect of the said accusations. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided in the course of trial. Time and again this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court are consistently holding that in case when injured witness comes forward and gives sworn statement, his statement evidence cannot be simply brushed aside for want of corroboration and especially at this stage of taking or not to take cognizance of the offences. At this stage, learned Magistrate ought not to have arrived to a conclusion that the dispute is civil in nature when it is clearly stated of 6 assault etc., both in the written complaint and in sworn statement.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.400 of 2021 in C.F.R.No.964 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadapa and the learned Magistrate is directed to take the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_______________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY,J Date: 21.09.2022 GR 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.198 OF 2022 Date: 21.09.2022 GR 8 In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed, setting aside the judgment of the appellate court in Crl. Appeal No. 45 of 2008 and the matter is remitted to the appellate Crl.R.P. No.1110 of 2015 court for fresh disposal of the appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the appellate court on 15-10-2015 without further notice. Since all the parties have representation before this Court, the appellate court need not issue fresh notice to the parties.