THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1104 OF 2009 27TH AUGUST 2009 BETWEEN: P.SUBBA RAO .. PETITIONER AND B.CHANDRA SHAKER .. ACCUSED THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1104 OF 2009 O R D E R : This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 30-10-2007 passed in S.R.No.3070 of 2006 in Cr.No.516 of 2004 of West Zone Team, CCS, D.D, Hyderabad on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and where under the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner u/s 203 Cr.P.C. 2. Background facts in nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner are: The petitioner presented a complaint before XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under section 190(1)(a) r/w 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate forwarded the private complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the Station House Officer, Nallakunta Police Station and thereupon the S.H.O., Nallakunta Police Station registered a case in Crime No.184 of 2004 u/s 323, 384, 389, 420 and 506 IPC. Subsequently, the crime came to be transferred to West Zone Team, CCS, Hyderabad and re-registered as Crime No.516 of 2004. After due investigation, final report came to be presented by CCS, Hyderabad on 5.7.2007. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and there after proceeded to dismiss the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C by an order-dated 30.10.2007. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: “ In the instant case, the police clearly mentioned in the final report that none of the witnesses cited by the prosecution have corroborated the version of complainant. Still, the complainant failed to produce any of the witnesses or to place any documentary evidence as discussed above, to prima facie show that the allegations levelled by him against the accused are prima facie acceptable. Therefore, the said decision relied on by the learned counsel is of no help to the complainant. For the above reasons, the conclusion that emerges is that there are no sufficient grounds to take cognizance against the accused for the offences alleged. In the result, the complaint is dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C. Final report accepted.” 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 4.2.2009. R1 entered appearance through a counsel. 4. When this revision came up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties the revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has given undue importance to the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer without examining the sworn statement of the complainant and thereby erred in dismissing the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent supported the order impugned in the revision. 8. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The trial Court has given undue importance to the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. Indeed the trial court laid much emphasis on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. What is required to be examined by the learned Magistrate is to consider whether any ingredients of the offence alleged are made out from the sworn statement of the complainant. 9. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed by setting aside order impugned in this revision and remanding the matter back to the trial Court to consider the sworn statement of the complainant independently without reference to the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and pass appropriate orders. 27th AUGUST, 2009. ( B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J ) TNB THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1104 OF 2009 27TH AUGUST, 2009.