IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2153 OF 2009 Between: Anne Sravan Kumar and others … PETITIONERS And State of Andhra Pradesh and others … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2153 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/A1 to A3 against order, dated 10.12.2009, passed by the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, in C.C.No.699 of 2009, by which the lower Court took cognizance of the case for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 109 and 120B I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against A1 to A6 and ordered issue of process to them. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the police after investigation filed final report before the Magistrate referring the case under the caption of "lack of evidence" and that the lower Court should not have taken the private complaint on file in a casual manner without giving reasons for not accepting final report filed by the police. The police in final report at one stage stated that the case is false; and at final stage stated that the case is being referred treating it as "lack of evidence". The investigating officer is not a judge or a Magistrate to appreciate evidence collected by him or her, in order to find whether the case is true or false. Finally, the investigating officer in this case referred the case treating it as “lack of evidence". That is the reason why the de facto complainant filed protest petition before the lower Court and it was allowed. After recording sworn statements of the de facto complainant and witnesses, the lower Court took the case on file for the appropriate offences in respect of which evidence was let in by the sworn statements. Having regard to contents of sworn statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the lower Court rightly took the case on file and issued summonses to the accused. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. 2. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 20, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2153 OF 2009 July 20, 2010