Chinnabathula Indira vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1010 Tel

     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.

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

(2015) 6 SCC 287

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.

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.

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.

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