THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.637/2008 Dt,17-6-2010 Bhogi Anjaneyaswamy ..Petitioner V. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Pubic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.637/2008 ORAL ORDER The petitioner-complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam under Sec.200 Cr.P.C., r/w 190 Cr.P.C., praying the court to take the complaint on file and punish the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 r/w 34 IPC. On forwarding the said complaint to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Srikakulam for investigation, the police registered a case in Cr.No.12/2002 under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. After due investigation, the police filed a final report requesting the court to treat the complaint as ‘false’. On filing the said report, a notice was given to the petitioner- complainant. The complainant filed his objections to the final report. Thereafter, an enquiry was made under Sec.202 Cr.P.C., After recording the sworn statement of the complainant by examining him as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2, the complaint was taken on file under Section 402 r/w 34 IPC against A-2 and A-4 and dismissed in so far as A-1 and A-3. The petitioner-complainant carried the matter in revision, being Crl.R.P No.2/2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. The said revision petition was dismissed on 30-10-2006. Questioning the impugned order confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam dismissing the complaint against A-1 and A-3, the petitioner- complainant filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., The sworn statement of the petitioner-complainant shows that as desired by A-2, the complainant presented three sarees and silver and other articles; the complainant also gave one tula gold. Not satisfied with the same, a word was sent through A-4 in the first week of April, 2004. Thereafter he went to the house of A-2 and presented two tolas of gold. The statement of the complainant does not indicate any involvement of A-1 and A-3 for the offence alleged. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.2 also does not indicate the involvement of A-1 and A-3, but it indicates the involvement of A- 2 and A-4 only. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below dismissing the complaint against A-1 and A-3 do not call for any interference. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.17-6-2010 kmr