HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4432 OF 2006 DATE:23.12.2009. Between: Rev.K.D.Ikyatha Rao and 4 others …….Petitioners And: State of A.P., rep. By PP and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4432 OF 2006 ORDER: The petition is filed under Sections 482 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying this Court to file complaint against the 2nd respondent for commission of offence under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the petitioners’ contention that the 2nd respondent filed Caveat Petition containing false statement in this Court in a civil revision petition proposed to be filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.08.2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in IA No.1533 of 2006 in O.S.No.947 of 2006. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent left India on 21.08.2006 and came back to India on 26.08.2006 after visiting Malaysia and that therefore, the 2nd respondent could not have signed affidavit on 24.08.2006 at Hyderabad and could not have filed the Caveat petition on 25.08.2006 in this Court. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that the 2nd respondent is out of India from 21.08.2006 to 26.08.2006 (both days inclusive), even then the petitioners could not make any false statement against the 2nd respondent in his Caveat petition filed in this Court. In the entire affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, he never stated that he signed the said affidavit on 24.08.2006. He did not put date below his signature contained in the affidavit. It is only the Advocate who attested the affidavit stated that the affidavit was sworn and signed before him/her on 24.08.2006 at Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent is not a party to the said declaration given by the attesting Advocate. Secondly, the 2nd respondent did not sign in the Caveat petition filed on 25.08.2006 by his Advocate. It is the Advocate alone who signed in the Caveat petition and not the 2nd respondent. Therefore, technically, the 2nd respondent did not make any false declaration or false statement or false deposition before this Court. In that view of the matter, there is no prima facie case for laying any complaint against the 2nd respondent for offence punishable under Section 191/193 of the Indian Penal Code or for ordering or making enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:23.12.2009 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4432 OF 2006 DATE:23.12.2009. Gk.