THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.Nos.994 of 2004 Date: 28.01.2011 Between: Chava Surya Prakasha Rao … Petitioner AND Malela Gandhi, and 16 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.R.C.Nos.994 of 2004 ORDER: The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid in C.F.No.3700 of 2000 is assailed through this revision. After recording the evidence of the revision petitioner and two others as PWs.1 to 3, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid held that prima facie case was not made out for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and dismissed the complaint u/s.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the revision petitioner is: a) The revision petitioner, A.4 and A.5 were partners of various business vendors including pesticides and fertilizers from 1976 till 1995. Disputes arose between the partners leading to the filing of various suits. b) The petitioner as well as A.4 and A.5 consequently appointed A.1 to A.3 as a committee of mediators to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the other partners. A.4 handed over all his account books and title deeds of himself and his relatives as well as various blank signed papers to the committee of mediators to facilitate them to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and his partners. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that A.1 to A.3 connived with A.4 and A.5 and handed over the entire records given by the petitioner to A.1 to A.3 to A.4 and A.5 and also helped A.4 and A.5 in creating various spurious agreements of sale in favour of A.6 to A.16. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 13.12.1998 questioning the attitude of A.1 to A.3. It would appear that A.3 who has been a practicing advocate at Nandigama replied the notice indeed denying the allegations. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that on 14.12.1998 itself the petitioner got issued a paper publication about the fraud played upon the petitioner by A.1 to A.5 and connived by A.6 to A.16. He further contended that the committee of A.1 to A.3 constituted a trust and that the same committed breach of trust and got suits filed against the petitioner for specific performance on the strength of forged documents. 4. As already pointed out, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined two others as PWs.2 and 3 in support of his claim before the trial Court. Holding that prima facie case is not made out, the trial Court dismissed the private complaint. Admittedly, the trial Court is expected to go into the prima facie case at Section 203 Cr.P.C. enquiry stage and is not entitled to make a roving search. I do not wish to make any comment about the reasoning adopted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid in dismissing the private complaint. At the same time, it would be more appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to permit the petitioner to let in further evidence before the trial Court whereupon the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on merits. The representative of the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial Court properly exercised the jurisdiction while dismissing the private complaint. I am afraid that the trial Court certainly overstepped its jurisdiction in trying to appreciate the merits of the case. 5. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court. The trial Court shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to let in further evidence and shall pass appropriate orders after recording further evidence on the petitioner’s side, if any and after hearing both sides afresh. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid is requested to consider the disposing of the complaint as expeditiously as possible. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 28.01.2011 Isn