THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.5993 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside order dated 30.7.2008 made in Crl.R.P.No.37 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram preferred against order passed in D.D.R.No.13053 of 2006 dated 16.11.2006 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. The petitioner is the complainant and respondents 2 and 3 are A1 and A2 in the unnumbered C.C. (D.D.R.No.13053 of 2006) which was filed against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 427 and 500 IPC. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to note the brief facts of the case. The petitioner-complainant (for short ‘the complainant’) filed complaint under Section 199 and 200 Cr.P.C. claiming or alleging that he obtained property bearing No.17-11-7 situated in T.S.No.509, Fort Road, Vizianagaram on a lease for a period of 99 years on an annual rent of Rs.200/- and immediately the possession of the property was delivered to him and accordingly he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property as per law and when the person-in-charge of Vidyardhi @ Neelayyamma Choultry and others tried to dispossess him, he filed the suit in O.S.No.533 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and in spite of pendency of the said suit, A1 who happened to be the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department and A2 who happened to be the Manager, Group of Temples demolished the building illegally and high-handedly with police aid, for which he got issued legal notice to the Accused and on the other hand, A1 made false allegations against him. The learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant and six others and rejected the complaint on the ground that A1 and A2 happened to be public servants and without obtaining necessary sanction under Section 199 Cr.P.C., the compliant should not be entertained and further the matter happened to be purely civil in nature and already the civil suit was filed and the same was pending, and further the complainant failed to substantiate the allegations made against A1 and A2, following which Crl.P.No.37 of 2006 was filed on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, which was also dismissed on the same grounds. Hence this petition. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to uphold the claim of the complainant. By virtue of the decision of the Apex Court in KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1], there can be both civil and criminal liability in respect of an issue and both are to be decided independently, but in order to take cognizance of the complaint, there should be definite material to do so. Mere oral statements of the complainant and her witnesses is not suffice to come to a definite conclusion in that regard in the absence of necessary documentary evidence. In fact, it appears that no documentary evidence was placed before the Court with regards to the so-called lease of the property. Therefore, at the out set, the complaint is not tenable because of lack of necessary material to take cognizance of it. Section 200 Cr.P.C. provides for filing of complaints, Section 201 Cr.P.C. provides for return of the complaint, when a Magistrate before whom such a complaint is filed got no authority to take cognizance of it, Section 202 Cr.P.C. provides for referring such matter to concerned Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to conduct necessary investigation and to file report or enquire into the matter taking necessary measures, Section 203 Cr.P.C. provides for dismissal of the complaint if no sufficient material is placed to take further action in the matter giving reasons and Section 204 Cr.P.C. provides for issuance of process to the concerned accused if it is found that sufficient material was placed to take cognizance of the matter and accordingly cognizance of the matter was taken. Further, there is no dispute that A1 and A2 happened to be public servants being the employees of Endowments Department, and unless necessary sanction is obtained from the Government under Section 297 Cr.P.C., they cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences, by reason of which also, the complaint is not tenable. The circumstances of the case clearly provide that just for the purpose of continuing in the possession of the property illegally, the complaint was filed, which is therefore is to be termed as frivolous in nature. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below and the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: .10.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011 [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624