HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9316 OF 2010 DATE: 20.09.2010 BETWEEN: Gaddampally Krishnaveni .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9316 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 30.10.2008 passed in Crl.R.P.No.46 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy confirming the order dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy in Crl.M.P.No.1795 of 2008. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kamareddy, wherein the second respondent is the accused. The complaint filed by the petitioner was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Kamareddy Police Station and basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No.1795 of 2008 was registered under Section 498 A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Ultimately, charge sheet was also filed which is numbered as C.C.No.5 of 2008. The second respondent and the other accused were arrested in connection with the said case and were produced before the magistrate. In the bail petition filed before the magistrate, the second respondent, Tangella Laxma Reddy got mentioned his occupation as private teacher while in fact, he was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in Mandala Praja Parishad Primary School, Dupally of Nalgonda District. Noticing the said fact, the petitioner filed a complaint petition under Sections 420, 202 and 182 IPC for taking cognizance of offence to punish the accused accordingly. The learned magistrate did not take cognizance of offence and dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.1795 of 2008 by his order dated 17.09.2008 without recording any finding as to whether the second respondent made any false statement before the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.46 of 2008 which came up for hearing before the VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy who confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The said order is sought to be set aside. Now the point for determination in this criminal petition is - whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge? As per Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence of the present nature committed before the Court can be taken cognizance only on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. In the instant case, absolutely, there is no finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the second respondent committed any offence showing his occupation falsely. Further, the learned Magistrate also did not consider the alleged act committed by the second respondent as an offence did not make any complaint or cause any complaint to be made as provided under Section 195 Cr.P.C. The learned Court of revision is therefore, justified in confirming the order passed by the learned magistrate because the petitioner cannot insist upon the Court to take cognizance of offence against the second respondent. I absolutely see no merits in the criminal petition. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 20.09.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9316 OF 2010 DATE: 20.09.2010