THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.131 of 2023
JUDGMENT :
The present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner against the impugned docket order dated 15.09.2022 in C.F.R.No.991 of 2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak and seeking direction for registration of missing person report/F.I.R before the Manoharabad police station, Medak.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.F.R.No.991 of 2022.
3. Petitioner is the complainant, who has filed an application under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C praying the trial Court to forward the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to the Station House Officer, Manoharabad Police Station for investigation and report in the ends of justice.
4. The contents of the complaint discloses that petitioner has filed a suit vide O.S No.300 of 2021 (renumbered as O.S. No.379 of 2022), before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel against Sri Chinnabathula Mahesh for a share in the property of her husband/Chinnabathula [email protected] Sathyanarayana and also filed I.A No.890 of 2021 in the said suit for ad-interim injunction and obtained injunction orders. 2
5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the complainant's husband namely Chinnabathula [email protected] Sathyanarayana was found missing from 02.06.2004 and that the complainant along with family members and relatives, searched for him at various places such as bus stops, railway stations and also complained at the Toopran Police Station, who assured her that they would search and find him out. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the Police Station many times but the whereabouts of her husband are not known. Thus, an F.I.R has to be registered for missing of her husband.
6. It is the specific contention of the complainant that the Police at Manoharabad did not reduce the oral complaint into writing on 02.06.2004, therefore, the present private complaint was filed under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C to direct the police to investigate the case.
7. The learned Magistrate after considering each and every aspect stated by the petitioner and basing on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 781 of 2012, dated 19.03.2015 between PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS1, held that there is no veracity in the allegations made in the complaint in order to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C or to take cognizance and 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 3 accordingly dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision case is filed.
8. It is the specific contention of the revision petitioner that the learned Magistrate should have considered that the husband of the petitioner was missing from 02.06.2004 and as the petitioner was suffering from T.B and was not able to lead her livelihood and approached the police with a fond hope of tracing her husband and therefore, the trial Court ought to have referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for registering the F.I.R.
9. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the complainant has given a report to the Manoharabad Police on 24.02.2022, vide postal acknowledgment No. EN423777876IN and also the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Medak District vide postal acknowledgment No. EN450396378IN, as per Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. It is the further case of the petitioner that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA's case (1 supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and it has not been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court and direct the police to register the case.
4
10. On the other hand, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that no prima facie case is made out as per the contents of the complaint in order to refer the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the orders of the learned Magistrate needs no interference as there is no irregularity or illegality in the said order.
11. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court directing the learned Magistrate to refer the matter to the police and opportunity may be given to the parties to record their statements.
12. The trial Court ought to have recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses in order to see whether a prima facie case is made out or not. But on perusal of the record, the complaint copy preferred by the petitioner clearly disclose that the complainant's husband namely Sri Chinnabathula Sathaiah @ Sathyanarayana S/o late Chinnabathula Pochaiah was missing from 02.06.2004. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they made an oral complaint in the year 2004, there is no evidence before the Court to show that the police have not registered any case for missing of the man, inspite of the complaint given by the petitioner.
5
13. However, after lapse of 19 years, the petitioner now files a report before the Court seeking direction to the police to investigate into the matter and trace her husband. As per the law of Criminal Jurisprudence, if a person is not heard of for seven years or more, he is presumed to be dead.
14. Further on perusal of the complaint, it is evident that now the petitioner wants transfer or mutation of the property lying in the name of the missing person namely Chinnabathula [email protected] Sathyanarayana on to her name, but as the revenue authorities have refused to mutate her name, she has filed the present complaint. If at all, the petitioner wants to get the land mutated on to her name which is on the name of her husband and if such application was rejected or refused by the Revenue authorities, the petitioner is at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the inaction of the revenue authorities in mutating the name. As already stated, if a person is not heard of for seven years or more, he is presumed to be dead in the eye of law. Therefore, after lapse of 19 years, making an application to the learned Magistrate to refer the matter to the police for investigating about the missing person, would not arise at this juncture.
15. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no irregularity or illegality or arbitrariness in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate in dismissing the case. 6
16. Moreover, in the Judgment of the Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA's case (1 supra), it is held at para 27 as follows.
"It needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order.
Therefore, there is no error or irregularity in the orders of the learned Magistrate.
17. In view of the above, the criminal revision case is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the orders in C.F.R No.991 of 2022 dated 15.09.2022 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Medak.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Date: 29.02.2023 Smk