HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:867 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 02.12.2008 in CFR No.5825 of 2008 whereby the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts are that the complainant’s husband by name Batchu Saibabu purchased agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1.20 cents in Sy.No.608/A situated at Ankireddypalem, Guntur Mandal, under a registered sale deed dated 10.8.1982. Out of the same, he sold an extent of Ac.0.61 cents to the brother of the 1st respondent-A1 by name Karreddula Kiran Kumar, under a registered sale deed dated 30th September, 1991. So far as the remaining extent of Ac.0.59 cents is concerned, Sai Babu got a petroleum dealership under ST quota in the year 1982 and he is running a petroleum pump in certain extents out of the said extent of Ac.0.59 cents. An extent of Ac.0.10 cents was given to V. Visweswara Rao, who is added as 12th respondent, to run a hotel under the name and style of Raghavendra hotel. The said Sai Babu died on 18.3.1996. Taking the innocence of the complainant, the 1st respondent-A1 created certain false documents as if the entire land was sold in favour of the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent in turn sold it to the 7th respondent and thus, several transactions took place. The same was complained to the District Registrar as early as on 10.3.2005. Similarly, a complaint was made to the DIG of Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, on 11.3.2005. Further, a report was given to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Guntur on 13.3.2005 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 423, 447, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(ix) 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act and the same was registered as Crime No.190 of 2005 by the S.H.O., Guntur Taluk P.S. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 28.2.2007 only against A1 and A14 to A16 i.e., respondents 1, 14 to 16. So far as the other accused are concerned, police referred the matter as false. On service of notice, the petitioner filed a protest petition and the same was numbered as C.F.R.No.5825 of 2008 and as stated supra, the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 2.12.2008. 3. After service of notice, respondents No.1, 8 to 10 and 11 put in their appearance and the notices on others were not served. Hence, this Court directed the Counsel for the petitioner to take out substitute service to respondents 1, 3 to 7 and 13 and accordingly, he took substitute service and produced the paper publication. 4. Heard the learned Counsel on record. 5. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that may be true that A1, A14 to A16 who are added as respondents 1 and 14 to 16 belong to ST community and the provisions of SCs and STs Act may not attract, but so far as the other accused are concerned, the complaint allegations coupled with the list of documents clearly attract the other provisions of IPC. It is his further submission that in the protest petition, he annexed so many documents i.e., documents 1 to 14 to establish that all the respondents have conspired and got the false sale deeds executed, but however, the learned Magistrate without looking into these things, dismissed the said protest petition or the complaint. 6. Per contra, Sri K. Srinivas, learning Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri Venugopal Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 8 to 10 submitted that the Court below is perfectly justified in not taking cognizance in so far as the other accused are concerned. 7. In a very recent decision viz., D. Rama Devi Vs. State of A.P.[1], this Court observed that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited only to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. It is further held by this Court that the complaint shall be looked into only for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out or not and for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complaint without at all adverting to any defence that accused may have. 8. The Court below, in my considered view proceeded in a wrong assumption in holding that no prima facie case is made out against the respondents for the offences alleged under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 423, 447, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(ix) 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. When it is the case of the complainant that her husband by name Sai Babu purchased the land in question as early as on 10.8.1982 and only a part of it was sold to the brother of A1 under a registered sale deed dated 30.9.1991, how can the trial Court hold that the entire complaint is false. The documents that were annexed to the protest or complaint are as under: 1 11.7.2005 Xerox copy of Certificate issued by MRO, Chirala showing that the complainant is an ST 2 10.8.1982 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of late Batchu Sai Babu for Ac.1.20 cents (Doc.No.7991 of 1982) 3 30.9.1991 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of A2 for Ac.0.61 cents executed by late Batchu Sai Babu (Doc.No.6783 of 1991) 4 28.6.1995 Xerox copy of Lease agreement in favour of late Veerella Visweswara Rao executed by late Batchu Saibabu 5 8/4/1996 Xerox copy of Death Certificate issued by Guntur Municipal Corporation 6 25/7/1996 Xerox copy of Family Member Certificate issued by the MRO, Chirala 7 19.11.2003 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of A5 (Doc.No.5479/2003) 8 3/3/2004 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of A7 executed by A5 (Doc.No.1061 of 2004) 9 2/7/2004 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of A8 and A9 executed by A7 (Doc.No.3508 of 2004) 10 28/10/2004 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of A10 to A12 executed by A8 and A9 (Doc.No.7145 of 2004 11 28/10/2004 Xerox copy of Regd. Sale deed in favour of late Verella Visweswara Rao executed by A8 and A9 (Doc.No.7212 of 2004) 12 10/3/2005 Xerox copy of Complaint to the District Registrar of Registration and Stamps, Guntur. 13 11/3/2005 Xerox copy of Complaint to the Commissioner & IG of Registration and Stamps 14 13/3/2005 Xerox copy of Complaint to the S.I. of Police, Guntur Taluk P.S., by the complainant. In view of the said documents, which were annexed to the said protest petition/complaint, the finding of the Court below that the petitioner had not made out a prima facie case cannot be accepted. It may be apt to refer to the judgment of the Magistrate at paragraph No.7, which reads as follows: “In view of the statement of complainant and its witnesses, it shows that the land an extent of Ac.1.20 cents belongs to one Sai Babu, complainant’s husband and at earliest he sold some extent of Ac.0.61 cents to others and complainant claimed that her husband used to possess the remaining Ac.0.59 cents. It further shows that from time to time, the remaining extent was sold in favour of respondents and further transactions took place. Except showing that a transaction took place and pleading ignorance of the transactions and particularly denying sale deed dated 10.11.2003, there is no material showing that as complainant and her sons belonging to ST community, to cheat them only false documents were prepared. There is long silence on part of the complainant and her sons in raising the dispute and they have not questioned the veracity of these documents. Though at this stage this Court may not go into the merits of the case, it is to be noted that complainant has not chosen to produce any sort of evidence that even today they are in possession and enjoyment of the remaining Ac.0.59 cents of land.” The said finding of the Magistrate is not correct for the reason that in the complaint itself specific allegations are made at paragraph No.6 and the same were reiterated by the complainant and her two witnesses in the sworn statements recorded by the Magistrate. From the perusal of the complaint and the said sworn statements, it is clear that a prima facie case is made out against all the accused. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned in this revision is hereby set aside and the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, is hereby directed to take cognizance of the offences against all the accused, proceed further with the trial and decide the same on merits. ______________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 31.1.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:867 OF 2009 31.01.2011 [1] 2006(2) LS 135