THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1313 OF 2004 Dated: 30-06-2011 Between: Anmolu Satyanarayana. - - - Petitioner/ Petitioner/ De-facto complainant. And The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent. This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1313 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside order dated 06-07-2004, passed in Roc. No.323/2004/C, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddigudem, rejecting the Revision petitioner’s plea to attend his copy application filed under Section 212 of Cr.P.C. seeking to issue certified copies of F.I.R., Panchanama Report, Post Mortem and Final Reports of the Station House Officer, Jeelugumilli in Crime No.61 of 2002 in P.R.C. No.1/2004, in which the petitioner is the de-facto complainant, on the ground that no purpose was mentioned by the petitioner for supplying the documents. 2. In fact, on behalf of the petitioner/de-facto complainant it was pleaded that the second respondent therein i.e., the first accused and others harassed his daughter namely Kakkirala Anitha (wife of the first accused) resident of Jeelugumilli and consequently she passed away, following which, the de-facto complainant lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Geelugumilli for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but final report was filed by the concerned police following which the case was closed without giving notice to him by the Magistrate and hence he required copies of relevant F.I.R., Panchanama Report, Post-mortem Report and Final Report of the Station House Officer, Geelugumilli in Crime No.61 of 2002 in order to peruse the matter. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Station House Officer, Jeelugumilli filed the final report before the concerned Magistrate and it should not have been allowed without serving any notice on the de-facto complainant following which the copy application was filed and it was not correct on the part of the Magistrate to reject the application on the ground that sufficient reasons were not given. 4. Now, the point for consideration is : Whether sufficient grounds were given in order to upheld the claim of the Petitioner/De-facto complainant? 5. It is important that the circumstances enumerated amply provide that final report was filed by the concerned Station House Officer in the case and following that the case was closed without giving any notice to the Revision Petitioner/De-facto complainant. In the petition, clear reasons should have been given while seeking for the said documents. Further, when the Revision Petitioner/De-facto complainant filed the petition it must be with reference to the main case and the learned Magistrate Should have allowed the petition. 6. Therefore, rejecting the application on the ground that sufficient reasons were not given is not proper, whereas being a party interested in the matter the documents should have been supplied to him, in any case. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate is set-aside with a direction to the learned Magistrate to comply with the request made by the petitioner to supply the necessary documents immediately. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. 30th June, 2011 Dsh. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 230 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1313 OF 2004 Date:30.06.2011 Dsh.