HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.395 of 2005 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the complainant in S.R.No.1366 of 2004 on the file of the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli. He filed a private complaint before the said court under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure on 7.7.2004 and it was at S.R. stage. It is stated in the complaint that both the accused having developed acquaintance with the complainant borrowed certain amounts on three occasions amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- against the three pronotes with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. That when repayment was demanded, A1 being a bank employee, informed the complainant to open an account in the bank and accordingly the complainant opened the account in the name of his wife, whereupon A1 issued saving account passbook No. ABG 817 recording an entry showing an amount of Rs.6,13,000/- was deposited in the said account towards discharge of the debt. That, on 23.5.2003 it was discovered that the entry was a deceptive entry. That when A1 was approached, he gave four pronotes as a security towards payment of the original amount, executed by third parties in favour of his wife. He also assured repayment within 2 or 3 months. Since the accused failed to repay the amount within assured time, a legal notice dated 14.11.2003 was issued. Thereafter a suit in O.S.No.68 of 2003 was instituted on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, wherein the defence of the accused was that he never borrowed the suit amount or any other amount from the complainant and he never executed any pronote in favour of the complainant nor any pronotes that were executed by third parties in favour of his wife, were given to the complainant towards the security. That thereafter, the complainant had filed aforesaid private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in S.R.No.1366 of 2004. However, the learned Magistrate without taking cognizance and without referring the same to the Police for investigation rejected the private complaint by a docket order on 7.7.2007 holding that the private complaint was filed by the complainant without availing the remedy of directly approaching the concerned Police. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-complainant contended that the impugned docket order of the court below is perverse and erroneous and as such the same may be set- aside by allowing the revision case. 3. The learned public prosecutor, however, supported the impugned docket order passed by the court below. 4. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this court is of the view that the learned Magistrate without following the procedure as laid down under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and without referring the private complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant to the Police for enquiry and report, rejected it and the same is perverse and erroneous and as such the impugned order is not tenable in law and liable to be set-aside. 5. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupalli and the learned Magistrate is directed to cause enquiry by referring the matter to the Police, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 7.7.2004 in S.R.No.1366 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli, is set-aside. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 07-04-2011 Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.395 of 2005 07 -04-2011