THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1052 of 2007 Dated: 01ST FEBRUARY, 2010 Between: Alla Mallikarjuna Rao …Petitioners / Complainant AND State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. And others …Respondents / Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1052 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. questioning order dated 20.11.2006 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, in Criminal Revision Petition No.20 of 2005 by which, that Court confirmed order dated 20.06.2005 of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Khammam, in Criminal M.P.No.267 of 2005 in Crime No.184 of 2004 of Khammam II Town Police Station. Originally, the second respondent (A-3) gave report to the police against the petitioner; and the police, after investigation, filed C.C.No.658 of 2004 against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. in I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court, Khammam. It is alleged that at the instance of the second respondent (A-3), the police took the petitioner to the police station and in collusion with the second respondent, the police filed false case against the petitioner in C.C.No.658 of 2004 in spite of there being no documents supporting the second respondent’s contention. It is further complaint of the petitioner that A-1 and A-2 (respondents 4 and 3 herein), who are the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Head Constable in II Town Police Station, Khammam, illegally took the petitioner to the police station and he was threatened and he was illegally detained and a false case was foisted against him causing defamation to the petitioner. On these allegations, the petitioner filed private complaint before the Magistrate against A-1 to A-3 for offences punishable under Sections 211, 347, 385, 500 and 504/34 I.P.C. After recording sworn statement of the petitioner, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and for report. After investigation, the police filed final report referring the case as false. Thereupon, the petitioner filed protest petition before the Magistrate. After considering the complaint, protest petition and sworn statement given by the complainant, the Magistrate took the case on file as against A-1 only for offence punishable under Section 385 I.P.C. In revision petition, the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirmed order passed by the Magistrate. Even though there is no second revision petition permissible in law as against a revisional order passed by the Sessions Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by way of this petition. The petitioner’s counsel took me through the entire allegations in the private complaint filed by the petitioner before the Magistrate. Even though the private complaint contains many allegations, the petitioner, in his sworn statement before the Magistrate, did not speak to these allegations. Having regard to sworn statement of the petitioner/complainant, the Magistrate took the case on file against A-1 alone for offence punishable under Section 385 I.P.C. Presence of A-2 at the time of the incident in the police station much less about A-2’s participation in the offence was not spoken to by the complainant in his sworn statement. There are no indications in his sworn statement about complicity of A-3 in this case. Having regard to sworn statement of the petitioner/complainant, both the Courts below rightly did not take cognizance of the case as against A-2 and A-3 and also for other offences than offence punishable under Section 385 I.P.C. against A-1. There are absolutely no merits in this petition. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 01, 2010 Bvv