Ma.Khiyaz, Karimangar Dt., vs State Of Ap. Rep. Pp And 4 Othrs.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 1434 Tel

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

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.

(1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 720

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.

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