HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5625 AND 6397 of 2007 Criminal Petition No.5625 of 2007:- Between: K.Govinda Reddy and others … Petitioners And State of A.P.,rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … Respondents Criminal Petition No. 6397 of 2007 Nayab Rasool and others … Petitioners And State of A.P.,rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5625 AND 6397 of 2007 COMMON ORDER:- These two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the accused Nos.7 to 10 and 1 to 6 respectively, to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.114 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, which was taken on file against the petitioners/A1 to A10 for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC, against A1 for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The 2nd respondent/complainant filed a complaint stating that she filed a case and on which basis, the police registered a case in crime No.25 of 2004 and after due investigation the police referred it as false and issued notice to her on 02.09.2006. The police registered a false case with regard to the incident on 20.03.2004 and thereby she sustained injuries on her legs as an auto, bearing No.U7377, ran over her legs and she sustained monetary loss. It is further submitted that she is the complainant in C.C.No.8 of 1995 in which A4 to A6 and 20 others were shown as accused and whenever she attended the court on the date of adjournments, A4 to A10 used to bring pressure for compromise by threatening her. In spite of their threatens, she did not yield to their pressure and the case was posted for judgment on 23.03.2004. On 20.03.2004 at about 08.00 P.M. when she was coming to her house and when she came near old bus stand, an auto bearing No.U7377 ran over her and as a result she sustained injuries on her two legs. Basing upon the said complaint and the sworn statement recorded, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class in C.F.R.No.1247 of 2004, dated 06.08.2004, by a detailed order held that in the sworn statement of the complainant, she stated that on 20.03.2004 when she went to sundry shop to bring articles in view of Ugadi festival at about 8.00 P.M. one Stalin, Janardhan and Danamma came there and threatened her for her life and while bring sundry articles one auto hit her from back side and that the above said persons in collusion with the auto driver instigated him to drove the auto over her in order to see her end and then the auto ran over her legs and at which time her son by name Manohar also boarded the Auto who is going to his in-laws house and who made hue and cry by saying amma. Noticing the contrary versions of the complainant in the complaint as well as in her sworn statement and as the complainant’s son by name Manohar also filed a private complaint regarding the very same incident, the trial Court after perusing the same in order to come to a right conclusion, suo motu called for perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant’s son. On perusal of the previous complaint, dated 22.04.2004, made by the complainant’s son and the complaint allegations in the complaint made by the complainant, wherein she stated that her son i.e., Manohar is a witness to the incident, the trial court was of the view that if at all the complainant received injuries in the presence of his son Manohar, both might have given true and real facts before the Court. But on perusal of both the complaints there are full of contradictions and does not show any prima facie case as alleged by them, as the private complaint, dated 22.04.2004, filed by her son was almost after a lapse of one month after the incident that occurred on 20.03.2004 and the present complaint in the above C.F.R.No.1247 of 2004 was filed nearly after lapse of five months, which is an after thought and to put the accused in harassment. The Xerox copy of the complaint, dated 20.03.2004, was also filed, upon which basis a case in crime No.25 of 2004 was registered under Section 337 IPC. When she signed empty papers how it is possible to have Xerox copy of another alleged complaint, dated 20.03.2004, which is quiet contra to the complaint attached to the F.I.R. in crime No.25 of 2004. In view of the same, the trial court was of the view that the complainant has given a go-bye story to her actual complaint and on perusing the material, no prima facie case was made out by the complainant and accordingly, rejected the complaint with a direction to the complainant that she should not prefer such type of frivolous complaint with false allegations and not to approach the Court without having any prima facie case, otherwise the Court will take necessary action against her and her family. With the very same allegations, she filed the present complaint. It is fairly well settled that once a complaint is rejected on the very same allegations, the Magistrate cannot review the same in view of the bar contained under Section 362 Cr.P.C., except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The remedy of the complainant against rejection of complaint is only by way of revision or appeal, if any. In view of the same, taking cognizance of the complaint for the very same offence, which was earlier rejected on the very same allegations by the Magistrate, is nothing but without jurisdiction and is an abuse of process of law and the same cannot be continued. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 19th August 2010 lmv