HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8178 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner, under section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records relating to the order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, East & North, Ranga Reddy District, in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2003 in C.C.No.442 of 2001 as confirmed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, in Crl.R.C.No.30 of 2004 by an order dated 05.01.2010, and quash the same. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, East & North, Ranga Reddy District, against respondents 2 to 10 herein for the offences punishable under section 3(iv) (x) of the S.C. & S.t. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC and the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Kushaiguda P.S., Hyderabad, for investigation and report. Having received the complaint, the police registered the same as Crime No.442 of 2001 and after completion of investigation, filed a final report before the learned Magistrate stating that it is a false case. Against which, the petitioner filed a protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2003 seeking to take cognizance of the case and the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petition by an order dated 28.11.2003 which runs as follows: “Protest petitioner absent. No evidence produced for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The presence of protest petitioner felt essential. In view of the fact that no evidence is produced, inspite of granting ample opportunity, I am inclined to accept the final report filed by the police. Accordingly, the protest petition is dismissed.” Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner herein preferred Crl.R.P.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and the learned Sessions also dismissed the revision by an order dated 05.01.2010. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “As seen from para NO.2 of the revision petition, it is quite clear that the revision petitioner filed private complaint only to refer the case to Malkajgiri police to register, investigate and to file a report. The revision petitioner has not sought for any relief in his private complaint to take the case on file for the said offences. Thus, the relief prayed by the revision petitioner in his private complaint is already complied with by the trial Court, and therefore, question of proceedings further does not arise. To say in other words, it is not the case of the revision petitioner that he filed the private complaint seeking relief to take the case on file and to proceed with the case. It is the case of the revision petitioner only to refer the case to police and get the case registered. Accordingly, the trial court forwarded his private complaint and got registered and obtained the report from the police. Since there is no specific relief in the private complaint, requesting the Court to take the case on file, the case cannot be taken on file without specific relief. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, it is found that the trial Court rightly passed the impugned order and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the trial Court.” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate is sustainable in law? The perusal of the order dated 28.11.2003 shows that the learned Magistrate dismissed the protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.110 of 2003 on the ground that the petitioner was called absent before the Court at the time of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., inspite of granting ample opportunity. The learned Magistrate further observed that when there is enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the presence of the petitioner-complainant should be necessary. He further observed that in view of the fact that no evidence is produced, he is inclined to accept the final report filed by the police. The said observation is not according to law and this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate is totally erroneous in passing the impugned order. When there is a protest petition, the complainant should be given all opportunities not only to examine himself but also examine the witnesses in support of him, since the alleged offence in this case is triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge also failed to note that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order without assigning any valid reasons. Further, the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in the order dated 05.01.2010 that the complaint filed by the petitioner is only for the purpose of investigation. When investigation was already ordered, there is no need for passing any orders as prayed for by the petitioner-complainant. The learned Sessions Judge has also not passed the order dated 05.01.2010, in accordance with law, considering the factual and legal aspects envisaged in the Criminal Procedure Code. In view of the same, both the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The learned Magistrate is hereby directed to proceed with the case, in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity to the petitioner-complainant to examine himself and also examine the witnesses in support of him, and to dispose of the protest petition, after examination of the petitioner and the witnesses, at the earliest. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 24th August, 2010 cbs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8178 OF 2010 (Allowed) 24th August, 2010 cbs