HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2804 OF 2010 DATE: 06-10-2010 BETWEEN: Digvijay Singh Sarangdavot. - - - Petitioner. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2804 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Magistrate’) on 20-07-2009 in Crl. M.P. No.3937 of 2008 in C.C. No.532 of 2006. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The brief facts are that, the petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.532 of 2006 on the file of the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge before the learned Magistrate. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 14-08-2008. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, he preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.80 of 2009, which was heard and disposed of by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam (Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge’). The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and remanded back the matter to the learned Magistrate, with a direction to consider the material filed by the petitioner before the trial Court as well as before the Court of revision. The order of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judged, passed in Crl. R.P. No.80 of 2008, dated 18-11-2008, was communicated to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that, in spite of the direction issued by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, the Revision Petitioner did not file any material for consideration and thus, he has not evinced any interest in proceeding with hearing of the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, has specifically mentioned in his order that the learned Magistrate has to consider the material placed before him, as well as the material filed before the Court of Revision, but, as the said material was filed along with the Revision Petition, the same was not transmitted to the trial Court after disposal of the Revision and the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration the said fact, while dismissing the petition. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate passed the order without considering the material filed in the Revision Petition, in spite of the specific direction issued by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge and as such the order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside. The Criminal Petition is allowed, setting aside the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in Crl. M.P. No.3937 of 2008 in C.C. No.532 of 2006, dated 20-07-2009. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 06-10-2010 Dsh.