HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:292 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order, dated 14.12.2010 in CCSR No.6964 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The land in Survey No.74/11 of East Marredpally is a Government land and the accused are the land grabbers. The complainant is a landless poor. An extent of 24130.59 sq. mts in the said survey number is vested with the Government. In view of the Urban Ceiling Act, the said extent of land became available for distribution among landless poor. While so, in order to grab 861 sq. yards out of the said extent of land in the said survey number, the accused hatched a plan and they created a GPA in favour of accused No.11 as if the other accused shown in the complaint got certain extents of land in the said survey number and for their convenience, they are appointing A-11 as their agent to deal with the land of 861 sq. yards. The GPA was executed within the limits of Mirchowk police station. All the accused through GPA filed writ petition No.23223/09 showing some of the accused as parties. A3 and A4, who are sons of A2, are rowdy sheeters and they already involved in criminal cases. Further, the accused by producing the forged documents applied for licence to operate retail petroleum filling stations in the said land grabbed by them and also obtained license. In fact, the complainant filed W.P.No.4356 of 2010 on the file of this Court and the same is pending. Coming to know about the said writ petition, the accused are now planning to do away with the complainant. Apart from that, name of A5 is shown as Gangamma, W/o Balraj, but her name as per the voters’ list is A. Yellamma, W/o A. Shanker; A6 is shown as U. Narsamma, W/o Mahankali; A7 is shown as B. Sailu S/o Mallaiah. But as per the voters’ list his name is Yadagiri, S/o T. Ramanaiah; A8 is shown as U. Ellamma W/o Shankar; but as per the voters’ list, her name is D. Laxmibai, W/o D. Yadagiri; A9 is shown as A. Shanker, S/o Nagaiah. But as per voters’ list his name is V. Papaiah, S/o V. Guruvaiah; A1 is shown as A. Mallesh, S/o Nagaiah. But as per the voters’ list, his name is V. Papaiah, S/o V. Guruvaiah. Thus, the accused committed offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B r/w 384 IPC. The Court below dismissed the said complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is observed by the Court below that in the copy of G.P.A., filed by the complainant, executants’ names are shown as Smt. Gangamma, Smt. P. Kanakamma, Smt.B. Malleshwari, Smt. U. Narasamma, M. Sailoo, Smt. U. Yellamma, A. Shanker and A. Mallesh and their place of residence such as house number and street number are not given, whereas in the Xerox copies of voters’ identify cards, the addresses of the voters are also given and since the Xerox copies of the Electoral Extracts filed by the complainant, which do not contain any other new number than the particulars given in the voters identity cards, it is opined that they are not of much use since addresses of the executants of GPA are not given in the GPA, as seen from the copy of GPA filed and therefore, it is not possible to say whether the executants of GPA and the persons shown in the copies of voters’ identity cards are one and the same and moreover, the copy of the writ petition said to have been filed by the accused through GPA was also not filed and that there are no prima facie ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 10-B of IPC r/w 384 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It is to be noted that in the proceedings of this nature under section 202 Cr.P.C what requires to be examined by the Courts is to see as to whether there is a prima facie case made out by the complainant. Instead, simply relying on the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate has passed the order as if it were an out come of a full fledged trial, which in my considered view is wrong, as held by the Apex Court in MOHINDER SINGH Vs. GULWANT SINGH[1], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The scope of enquiry under section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudicating the guilt or otherwise of the said accused persons. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the Enquiry Officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. “ Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the observations of the learned Magistrate at paragraph No.6 of the order impugned, would amount to exceeding the powers conferred under the provisions of section 200 Cr.P.C and therefore, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the case of the complainant in consonance with the provisions of the Code. In the light of the above discussion, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2010. Consequently, the learned Magistrate is directed to take cognizance of the complaint and proceed with the case in accordance with law. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 25.3.2011 Note: CC in three days. B/O Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:292 OF 2011 25.3.2011 [1] 1992 SC 1894