THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1736 of 2010 (Dated : 24-12-2010) Between: Karri Veerareddy and others …Petitioners A n d State of A.P. rep. By the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1736 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 5.7.2010 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition in part and directed the trial Court to take the complaint on file for the relevant offences against A-1 to A-4. 2. Satti Rama Krishna Reddy is the father of Madhavi Kumari. She was married to A-1-Karri Nagi Reddy. She got two children out of the wedlock; a male child aged about 5 years and a female child aged about 8 years. A-1 along with his wife Madhavi Kumari resided in a house owned by Lw-3-Ch.Manikyam at Nagi Reddy Nagar as tenants. A-2-Karri Veerreddi and A-3- Karri Suryakantham are parents and A-4-Satti Varalakshmi is sister of A-1. A-1 to A-4 harassed Madhavi Kumari to bring money from her parents. The complainant, who is the father of Madhavi Kumari, gave 2 ½ lacs to A-1 for the purpose of discharging the debt incurred by him. According to the complainant, A-1 developed intimacy with A-5-Mutyala Sreevali and A-1 used to insist him through Madhavi Kumari to get money from him. A-1 hatched a plan to get rid of Madhavi Kumari to marry A-5. On 20.01.1998, at about 9.30 A.M., the complainant received a phone call from Lw-1-V.S.V.Ramana and Lw-2-Yalla Venkatarayudu stating that Madavi Kumari fell seriously ill. The complainant, on receiving telephonic message, rushed to the house of A-1 and found the dead body of Madhavi Kumari. The complainant noticed ligature marks around the neck of Madhavi Kumari. In the meanwhile, A-1 to A-4 came there and threatened the complainant and children of Madhavi Kumari with dire consequences in the event of their giving any report to the police. A-1 to A-4 cremated the dead body of Madhavi Kumari in the absence of the complainant and his family members. Later, the complainant came to know that A-1 and others gave false information to the panchayat/municipal authorities on 19.01.1998 as if Madhavi Kumari died due to heart attack and fabricated false record to escape their liability. The complainant received a letter by post depicting the pictures of A-5 and A-6 and also revealing conspiracy of A-1, A-5 and A-6 to kill Madhavi Kumari. 3. The complainant presented a private complaint before the VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Station House Officer, Bommuru P.S under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Bommuru P.S., registered a case in Crime No.182 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and issued F.I.R. After due investigation, the S.I of Police, Bommuru P.S., filed a final report referring the case as false. The complainant filed a protest petition aggrieved by the final report. The complainant examined three witnesses on his behalf and marked five documents. The learned Magistrate, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the complainant refused to take cognizance of the offences and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the complaint, by order dated 9.4.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as follows:- “ However, as per the version of Pws.1 to 3 there was no scope for them to obtain medical evidence by way of P.M.E but as discussed above, in spite of they having sufficient time and scope to inform the police, their act of not responding positively at the house of the accused after seeing the dead body sounds strange. Further, as all the witnesses are interested and none of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant, who is resident of Rajahmundry and neighbour to the deceased raises a doubt about the very contents of the complaint. Above all Ex.P.5, i.e., anonymous letter that was relied upon by the complainant which according to the complainant, is the base for lodging the complaint is also doubtful because, he did not take any steps with the help of the letter but simply stated that the police though received similar letter, failed to take any action. But it seems from the record that the police did not receive any such letter. In which circumstances, Ex.P.5 which has no head and tail of its existence, does not inspire confidence. Hence, in view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the complainant had failed to produce any evidence so as to make out a prima facie case against the accused. In the result, the C.C.S.R.No.5665/2009 stands dismissed”. 4. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The learned Additional District Judge, on re- appreciation on the material brought on record, found fault with the trial Court in the way the evidence has been evaluated at the stage of taking cognizance and thereby, proceeded to allow the revision in part and directing the trial Court to take the complaint on file for the relevant offences against A-1 to A-4, by order dated 5.7.2010. Para 4 of the order needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ Perused the sworn statements of Pws.1 to 4 the documents relied upon by the revision petitioner/complainant, the order of the lower Court and other material papers on record and the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. On perusal of the evidence on record it appears that the revision petitioner as Pw.1 has narrated entire events leading to the death of deceased and all links in the chain of circumstances are clearly spoken by him. The evidence of revision petitioner/complainant supported and corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 to 4 on all material aspects. The observations of the lower Court in para 7 of the order that “all the witnesses are interested and none of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant, who is resident of Rajahmundry and neighbours to the deceased raises a doubt about the very contents of the complaint and above all Ex.P-5 i.e., anonymous letter that was relied upon by the complainant which according to the complainant , is the base of lodging the complaint is also doubtful because he did not take any steps with the help of the letter but simply stated that the police though received similar letter, failed to take any action and that it seems from the record that the police did not receive any such letter and that Ex.P-5 which has no head and tail of its existence, does not inspire confidence…” are untenable at the stage of taking cognizance of the case and the merits in view of the observations made in the decision relied upon by the leaned counsel for the revision petitioner and the demerits of the case will be decided during the course of trial of the case. But not at the stage of taking cognizance and it has to be seen whether there is prima facie case or not to go into the intricacies commissions and contradictions. Further, the revision petitioner satisfactorily explained the delay on his part by his evidence and through the evidence of Pws. 2 to 4 and through the documents filed by him. The material available on record, the contents of the complaint, the documents, the evidence given on oath and the circumstances set out in para 8 of the complaint, prima facie case is made out against the respondents 1 to 4/accused 1 to 4 to proceed with the offences under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 to A.4 There is no prima facie case made out against the respondents 5 and 6/A.5 and A.6.” 5. Heard Sri T.Bal Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the police after due investigation filed final report stating that the case as false and in which case, there is onerous duty on the part of the Magistrate in evaluating the evidence before taking cognizance and the learned Magistrate has rightly evaluated the evidence and proceeded to dismiss the complaint and, therefore, the revisional Court is not justified in interfering with the well-reasoned order of the Magistrate. A further submission has been made that the revisional Court, at the most, may direct the Magistrate to reconsider the evidence brought on record afresh, in case of appreciation of the evidence by the learned Magistrate is incorrect, and pass appropriate orders. According to the learned senior counsel, giving direction to the Magistrate by the revisional Court to take cognizance is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent supported the order impugned in the revision. 8. The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C is not intended to take the place of a trial as the object is not to see whether the accused is guilty but only to ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence of the charge or a prima facie case which should be proceeded with. The learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C has only to consider whether prima facie case exists or not. If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under S.202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint. 9. The complainant examined Pws. 1 to 4 to substantiate the averments in the complaint. The complainant, while being examined as Pw-1, states that his daughter Madhavi Kumari has been harassed by A-1 to A-4 on the ground of additional dowry and he paid Rs.2.50 lacs to meet the demand of A-1 to A- 4. Various other circumstances have been stated by him in his evidence for suspecting the role of the petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as A-1 to A-4, in the death of his daughter. Pws.2 to 4 supported the version of Pw-1. The trial Court rejected to place reliance on the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 on the ground that the complainant did not chose to examine anyone from the village of the accused. The way in which the Magistrate has evaluated the evidence of the witnesses has been found fault by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.41 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by giving cogent and convincing reasons set aside the order of the Magistrate and issued direction to take cognizance of the offences against A-1 to A-4, who are the petitioners herein. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.24–12-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1736 of 2010 (Dated : 24-12-2010)