THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.933 of 2002 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 23.03.2002 passed in Crl.R.P.No.8 of 2001 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 16.12.2000 passed in C.F.No.3201 of 2000 by the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, directing the Magistrate to restore the complaint lodged by the respondent herein and proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). Brief facts that led to filing of the present revision case are as follows. The first respondent/complainant approached the III Additional Munsif Magistrate by filing a private complaint against the petitioners/accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 448 IPC. The learned Magistrate instead of taking cognizance of the said offences against the accused, referred the matter to the police for investigation as provided for under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, the police of Alipiri Police Station registered a case in Crime No.198 of 1999 against the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 448 IPC. The police investigated into the matter, and ultimately, submitted a report stating that it is a mistake of fact and law. In the light of the report given by the police, the Court below issued notice to the complainant. The complainant filed a protest petition and the same was numbered as C.F.No.3201 of 2000. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and two more witnesses on his behalf, came to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for taking cognizance, and accordingly dismissed the complaint on 16.12.2000 as provided for under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The same was questioned by the complainant before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupathi by filing Crl.R.P.No.8 of 2001. After notice, the accused have put in their appearance. The Court below having heard all the parties, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint is misconceived, and accordingly, set aside the same by her order dated 23.03.2002 and directed the trial Court to restore the complaint filed by the complainant to its file and proceed in accordance with law. As stated supra, the said order is under challenge. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gangirami Reddy strenuously contended that the learned Sessions Judge while entertaining the Crl.R.P. though ordered notice to the petitioners herein and permitted them to appear before the Court, has not permitted them to advance any arguments and the said order dated 23.03.2002, which is impugned in this revision case is, contrary to the established canons of law. According to him, as the petitioners are public servants, the trial Court has rightly held that the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable for the reason that the complainant did not obtain necessary sanction as provided for under Section 199 Cr.P.C. The other contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even from the contents of the complaint, the alleged offence took place on 9.05.1997 whereas the complaint is filed on 20.05.1999 i.e., after a lapse of two years and as such, the revisional Court ought not to have allowed the said Crl.R.P., directing the trial Court to restore the complaint and proceed in accordance with law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police only after completing the investigation in the matter i.e., recording the statements of the concerned witnesses as provided for under Section 161 Cr.P.C., came to the conclusion that the said complaint is both mistake of fact and law, and the trial Court also after recording the sworn statement of the respondent herein and two more witnesses on his behalf, came to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable. The learned counsel Sri Prabhakar Rao, appearing for the respondent/complainant contended that this revision itself is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners have no locus standi to advance arguments either before the trial Court or to file a revision case before this Court. According to the learned counsel, it is only when the process has been issued and the petitioners are served with notice they can come into picture, and then only they can question any proceedings before any competent Criminal Court. According to him, the revisional Court has rightly refused to hear the learned counsel for the petitioners herein and the said grievance of the petitioners is not heard by the revisional Court is of no consequene. In the light of the said submissions made by both the learned counsel it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C., deals with complaints to Magistrates. Section 200 deals with examination of complaint, Section 202 deals with postponement of issue of process, Section 203 deals with dismissal of complaint and Section 204 deals with issue of process before examination of complaint. Under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is the discretion of the learned Magistrate either to take cognizance of the offence or refer the matter to the police as provided for under Section 192 of Cr.P.C and the said provision of law deals with cognizance of offences for Magistrates. When once a complaint has been made by the complainant before a competent criminal Court, and if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the said offence, then he shall proceed in accordance with Section 200 Cr.P.C. For any reason if the Magistrate feels that it is a matter where investigation by the police is required, he may refer the matter to the police, and pursuant to which the police are duty bound to register a crime as provided for under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Here is a case where a private complaint has been filed by the respondent herein and the learned Magistrate thought it fit to refer the matter to the police. Accordingly, the matter was referred, and pursuant to which, the police registered a case in Crime No.198 of 1999 and after investigation, submitted a report stating that it is a mistake of fact and law. When once the police referred the case as false it is always left open to the complainant i.e., the persons like the respondent herein to file a protest petition, and as and when the same is filed it is for the Court either to take cognizance of the offence or dismiss the complaint. Here the Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the respondent and two of his witnesses, and for the reasons best known to him dismissed the complaint stating that it is not maintainable and there is no need of taking cognizance. From the above, it is clear that the process has not been issued and the matter is in between the respondent/complainant and the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. When the complaint filed by the respondent was dismissed, and the matter was carried to the sessions Court by filing a revision petition invoking the provisions under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C., because the complainant arrayed the petitioners herein as the respondents therein, the Court below issued notices to them, and pursuant to which the petitioners put in appearance by engaging an advocate. Simply because the first respondent herein has shown the petitioners as respondents therein, and the Court below issued notices to them, in my considered view, they do not get any locus standi. In fact, this aspect was discussed by the revisional Court and that is the reason why, it refused to permit the petitioners to advance any arguments. As stated supra, it is only when the trial Court after examination of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., issues process as provided under Section 204 Cr.P.C., then only the petitioners come into picture, and their remedy is altogether different. If it is a warrant case, they can file an application seeking discharge, or if they so choose, they may approach this Court by invoking the special jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In fact, this aspect was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Chandra Deo v. Prakash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose and another[1] it may be apt to refer some of the observations/findings made by learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the above judgment. “An accused person does not come into the picture at all till process is issued. This does not mean that he is precluded from being present when an enquiry is held by a Magistrate. He may remain present either in person or through a counsel or agent with a view to be informed of what is going on. But since the very question for consideration being whether he should be called upon to face an accusation, nor he has no right to take part in the proceedings, nor has the Magistrate not jurisdiction to permit him to do so, it would follow from this, therefore, that it would not be open to Magistrate to put any question to witnesses at the instance of the person named as accused but against him process has not been issued, nor can he examine any witnesses at the instance of such a person. Of-course, the Magistrate himself is free to put such questions to the witnesses produced before him by the complainant as he may think proper in the interests of justice, but beyond that he cannot go.” In the light of the settled legal propositions and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that this revision case itself is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Gangirami Reddy submitted that though this Court admitted this revision case, has not chosen to grant any interim stay. As the subsequent proceedings are not stayed, and the learned Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to restore the said complaint to his file and proceed in accordance with law, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections 427, 447 and 448 IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.245 of 2002. Because of the pendency of this revision case before this Court, the petitioners are made to appear before the Court below on every date of adjournment for the last eight years. Apparently the alleged offences under Sections 427, 447 and 448 IPC are compoundable and the maximum sentence according to the said provisions of law, is only two years. Even according to the respondent/the complainant, the alleged offences took place on 9.05.1997 and the complaint was filed on 20.05.1999 i.e., after a lapse of two years. The petitioners, who are the employees of Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, are appearing before the Court below. In the light of the process that has been issued as provided for under Section 204 Cr.P.C., in C.C.No.245 of 2002, this Court is of the view that the petitioners may file appropriate applications before the Magistrate concerned and the learned Magistrate shall take a lenient view after taking these factors into consideration, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. _________________________ (GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, J.) 12th August, 2010. Js. L.R. copy to be marked. [1] AIR 1963 SC 1430