Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A. Damodara Reddy, vs K. Raja Sekhar, on 30 September, 2021
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Criminal Revision Case No.1284 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is filed by the complainant against the
judgment dated 11.05.2006 in C C No.354 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.
2. The petitioner is the de-facto complainant. According to him, he
filed a private complaint vide CFR No.5621 of 2003 against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 307, 330, 342, 348, 357, 365, 500
and 506 of IPC and the learned Magistrate merged the said case in CC No.354 of
2006, which is filed by the police against the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC.
3. As seen from the copy of the proceedings dated 16.03.2006 in CFR
No.5621 of 2003, the private complaint of the petitioner was clubbed with CC
No.354 of 2006, which was filed by the police. The grounds taken in the
revision appears to be taken against the said order dated 16.03.2006 in
clubbing both the cases. Subsequent to the said proceedings, police case i.e.,
CC No.354 of 2006 was disposed of on 11.05.2006 finding the accused not guilty
of the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC and they were acquitted
under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
4. The following grounds are taken challenging the CC No.354 of 2003
dated 11.05.2006.
"The court below ought to have considered the private
complaint filed by the petitioner against the accused instead the lower
court committed an error clubbing the cases together.
The court below ought not to amalgamate the private
complaint and police case. It is permissible only when the facts
constituting the offence in the police case also include the facts
constituting the offence in the private complaint case.
The court below ought to peruse that the private complaint
filed under Sections 120-B, 307, 330, 342, 348, 357, 365, 500 and 506
of IPC, whereas the police case is u/secs. 324 and 506 IPC.
The court below erred in clubbing the cases together that the
ingredients of the offences u/s 307, 330, 342, 348, 357, 365, 500 of IPC
are not part of the offences under Secs.324 and 506 of IPC.
The Court below ought to have observed that the private
complaint under Sec.307, 330, 342, 348, 357, 365, 500 and 506 IPC was
triable by Assistant Sessions Judge only.
The court below ought to have considered the private
complaint filed by the petitioner and ought to have order the police for
investigation.
The lower court erred that the private complaint u/sec.307
etc. was only triable by Asst. Sessions Judge and not by the court
below. Hence it is a glaring error committed by the court below to act
upon the private complaint where there is no jurisdiction for the lower
court."
5. As seen from the above, the grounds taken by the de-facto
complainant/petitioner in the present revision do not apply to CC No.354 of
2003. A perusal of the judgment in CC No.354 of 2003, it does not contain that
the CFR No.5621 of 2003 is in fact merged with CC No.354 of 2003 and common
judgment was delivered in both the cases.
6. In the circumstances having gone through the entire record, as no
grounds are raised challenging the judgment in CC No.354 of 2003, this Court is
of the view that there are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to
entertain the revision case and accordingly, the criminal revision case is
dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this revision
case, shall stand closed.
_______________________
KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J
Date: 30.09.2021
BSS
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Crl.R.C. No.1284 of 2006
Date: 30.09.2021
BSS
