Telangana High Court
Ma.Khiyaz, Karimangar Dt., vs State Of Ap. Rep. Pp And 4 Othrs., on 4 April, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.397 OF2014
O R D E R:
The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 09.01.2014 in C.F.No.2168 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Peddapalli (for short, "the trial Court").
2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State and Mr. Srikanth, learned counsel representing Mr. Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 4.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 03.04.2024.Therefore, this Court directed the Registry to list the matter under the caption, "for dismissal". Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner inspite of listing the matter under the caption, "for dismissal". Hence, this Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and others 2 Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal for non-prosecution simpliciterwithout examining the merits.
4. The averments of the complaint are that the petitioner/complainant is the pattaholder of the land admeasuring Ac 12.00 gts in Survey No.566/2 and Ac. 2.10 gts in Survey No.571. Whileso, unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 4/accused created forged documents and occupied the said lands belonging to the complainant. It is stated that the complainant filed civil suit vide O.S.No.16 of 2008 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Manthani in respect of Ac 14.10 gts of land seeking PerpetualInjunction and the said suit is kept pending. Basing on the said facts the present crime is registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471, 447, 427m 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
5. The trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner by stating that no document is filed by the petitioner to prove the allegations levelled against the unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 4. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
1 (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720 3
6. As per the grounds raised in the Revision, the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material available on record in proper perspective and erroneously passed the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the trial Court after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence on record, rightly passed the impugned order and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, learned counsel seek to dismiss the Revision.
8. A perusal of the record shows that the suit filed by the petitioner herein vide O.S.No.16 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Manthani seeking Perpetual Injunction is dismissed vide judgment dated 14.08.2019. Therefore, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove that unofficial respondent Nos.2 to 4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 420, 468, 471, 447, 427m 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Hence, I donot find any perversity or irregularity in the impugned order and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.
4
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 04.04.2024 ESP