THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1071 of 2009 Date:09th November, 2011 Between: Lenka Adinarayana S/o.Tata ..... Petitioner/Revision Petitioner AND 1) The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1071 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been take out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order, dated 03.11.2008, passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.40 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondents 2 to 4 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w.34 IPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner. Considering the complaint averments and sworn statement of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the case and thereby dismissed the complaint, by order, dated 24.07.2006. The relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder: “4. According to the sworn statement of complainant, he is a resident of A.T.Agraharam and about 11 months back the offence took place in the plantation garden in between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. At that time, when they interfered to load the rice bags in the van, A.1 to A.3 beat him with stick on his fore head and on his right hand. Immediately, he informed to police. The police did not take any action. He filed this complaint. 5. P.W. 1 stated that the complainant and one Guru Naidu informed about the shifting of rice and immediately he rushed to that place and there he came to know that this complainant received injuries. So, it is clear that P.w.1 is not present and the statement of P.w.1 is very vague. After giving reasonable opportunity also he did not produce other witnesses before this Court to examine on his behalf. Except his oral statement, there is no material before this Court to take cognizance against these accused and this Court felt that as the material i.e., the sworn statement itself is not sufficient to proceed further as P.w.1 is not an eyewitness to the said offence, as alleged by the complainant against accused.” The petitioner herein unsuccessfully carried the matter by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.40 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. Being unsuccessful in the revision, he approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner furnished the names of the injured in the complaint and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in not taking cognizance of the offences set out in the complaint. 5. I have gone through the order passed by the trial Court and also the order passed by the revisional Court. Except examining P.W.1, the complainant did not produce any other evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court, taking into consideration the complaint as well as the sworn statement of the P.W.1, came to the conclusion that the complaint averments are not substantiated. I do not see any valid reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court as well as the order passed by the revisional Court. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1071 of 2009 Date:09th November, 2011