High Court · 2025

.BN.ss praying that in the circumstances .trt.d rPh't,|;oJ rilj:1, qre,,"g to p,,. ;,i:,J ;i .[r'ii!"[^l'1":T,i""ill!1LJ"i. ilfl i*:i Jill; dated 25-01-20,r ir orr r,r.p r.16 s'zi ;;i&'0,,; ;;:No g8 or 2)14 cc No 65 or 2021) on the file of naO]..L,1r.r^Crl,-rr.n" Llr_ I Addr Juctr Maqistrate of First Class al Hrrzrril rad. pending Crl.R.C.No.924 of 2024 Counsel for the petit oners: Sri K. prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respc,ndent No.1: Sri E. Ganesh, Assistant public prosecutc,r counsel for the R*s;rcndent No.2: sri Laxmi_Narayana, Iearned cc unser representing Sri A. Ganga<lhar The Court made the .,()tlowing, ORDER t i1 1 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL sloNCASEN o.924 or.2 o.24 cRIMINAL OR DER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 l'rli 4O1 of Criminal Procedure Code aggrieved by the docket order dated 25'Ol'2021 in Crl'M'P'No'327 of 2O2O in Cr.No'98 of 2014 on the hle of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Junior Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad (for short' "the trial Court")' Heard Sri K'Prabhakar Rao' learned counsel for the 2 revision petitioners and Sri Laxmi Narayana' counsel representing Sri A'Gangadhar respondent No'2' Perused the record' , learned counsel for Iearned J The brief facts of the case are that the complainant' accused Nos'1 and 2 arrd others are Partners of name and stYle of partnershiP firm under the with its factory/office at Milk Products M/s.Nagarluna Parkal X Road, PeddaPaPaiahPalli village of Huzurabad Mandal and the partnership is registered with Regi.Str?r of , r1- l. .:: .,: i \-I \ 2 firms u,itlr legistration No.173 of 2006, dated I Z 10.2006. The c trtp lainant is sleeping partner and her hr_ sbald is workirrg a s Supervisor of the firm. The c,om;tlai rant has the business profits and loss;es. .ll 50% shar.e rrr ereafter accuserl Nr,1. with the active support of acc.usecl Nrs.2 to 6 forged tl-Le signatures of the complainant on 3l . )1.2012 and 31 O:3.2012, created a partnership deed arlrl re irement deed rer;p,)ttiveiy and threatened the complair ant to transfer j!::r of the share, for which the husbanc of, the complainirnt lodged a complaint in Cr.Nc,.14l ct 2Ol2 before ttt, ilrrzurabad police Station for the offt,ncr under Section 3")! 1v1 1pg. Thereafter, on 2z.o3.2]o1zr ,t about 1 1.00 am. :1,:cused No.1 with three unkno\\!r p trsons obstructed tlrr: complainant and her husband ._rea their house ar<l il egally demanded Rs.6 lakhs m,rne. and threatene d tl-rem with dire consequences. Frtr u,hrc t. the complainrrrLt l:dged a complaint before the polici,, br 11 11_r. police di i rLo take any action against the ac( used. Thereafter.. rhe complaint lodged a private complaint l,efore the Judicia; I\{agrstrate of First Class at Huzurabacl fr r the offences un,ler Sections 4O6, 42O,46g,42 l, SD6 read rvith J 34 of IPC against the accused. After completion ol investigation police filed final report observing that in view of the disputes existed between main share holders i.e., accused No.1 and his nephew Naineni Sampath Rao, this case was filed with the instigation of said Sampath Rao to harass/suffer accused No. 1. Thus, the allegation against the accused committing the offences alleged against them does not hold any water.

4. It is noticed in the charge sheet that the prosecution has averred that the complainant has no longer any interest to take any further action against the accused, hence, sought to close the case against the accused.

5. The complainant-respondent No.2 filed a representation dated 29.O4.2019 before the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar, seeking to reopen the case, which was closed by the police Huzurabad, but no action has been taken on the said representation -1

6. l.grl;',eved by the said inaction of the Comm ssroner of Policr:' I(ar imnagar, respondent No.2 has ap:ror ched this Couri r,Lnc filed W.p No.i1901 of 2019. Accorrl.ngly, this Court vir.l: orders dated 17.06.2019 grantr__ci iberty to respor-rclent No.2 to approach the concerne,l Cr.imi ral Court for reclr .s sal of her grievalce. 7 . Ilesp rnrdent No.2 again filed a protest pe:ition in Crl.R.O ,{c, ii27 of 2O2O in Cr.No.9g of 2O14 on tl re file of thc I Adcljt ional Judicial Magistrate of Frrr;t ( tlass at Huzur: b:rc rnder Section 190(1)(a) read uith 20( Cr.p.C requestir g tr r:onduct trial against the petilionr:rs_ rccused under Sie::t o;rs 4O6, 42O,468,47I and5O6 read uith 149 of IPC. '''he learned .Iudicial Magistrate of First ( lass at Huzurabari rr',' considering the affidavits of three \\i1 nesses as LWs. I tr, l had taken cogntzance. Horvevt.r, l:arned Magistrate passed the docket order dated ,25.C1.2 )21 in Crl.M.P.l,ic .31'.t of 2O2O rn Cr.No.9g of 2014 ar:d aflorved the petit o r. Aggrieved by the same, the petitic,ner ; fired the presr:n.t rt iminal revision case seeking cluasrhm:nt of the dock:t c,rrler dated 25.Ol.2O2I in Crl.N..t.p.l{o.327 of -:--*- -_:-? rrr"x,.:r :Er:tt; i.- .:ffiws-{l // 5 1 Cr.No'98 of 2Ol4' passed by the learned trial 2020 1n Court.

8. Learned cortnsel for the petitioners submitted that without there being any materiar pertaining to the alleged offences, the present case is falsely foisted against him, which is abuse of process of iaw' He further submitted that though there is no corroborative evidence' the petitioners are implicated in the case with false and fabricated allegations only to harass them' He also submitted that the trial court has erroneously passed the impugned docket order without appreciating the facts of the case ' In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava Case and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersl submitted that without there being any support of aJfidavit' the said complaint has been frled before the learned trial Court' and the trial Court has taken cogni zalrce otr the private complaint hled by the petitioner' It is further submitted that the roots of the case would goes to show that the ' 20t5 (6) scc 28? ,t (l coml)li n . itself will not withstand the crimiral I ru, as it is not srt r;1_ o;-fsd by arly affidavit and is being cove ed by the order 1:,a ssecl by the Hon,ble Supreme Court rn priyanka Srivat s tr-a (cited supra) and the impugrLed cloc <et order dated 2; C .2021 in Crl.M.p.N o.32T of 2Oll,O it.tCr .No.9B of 2074 slta I be of no consequence ald hen<:e s,:ekr to allow this Crirnir itl Revision Case.

9. Leirrn:d counsel for respondent N,t.2 vel emently opposecl tlr: submissions of the learned r:ounsel for the petrttor c-s r;.,ating that though the petitione.rs frau lulentty forged r.lre ;ignature of the d.e_facto cornplaina et and threatenerj lt er r,r,ith dire consequences, fiied the tresent Criminal ,Re rision Case with unclean hands atrd , yithout narratinq tlr: entire a-llegations made in the con plarnt. Hence, h,: 1l:a_r,ed the Court to -dismiss the Cr iminal Revision Cas r. io. Learrre,l Assistant public prosecutor fcr rt:spc ndent No.l-State u.lrile supporting the arguments advanc ld on behalf of r,.5;6 ndent No.2 submits that thert: are s( rlous ,at "_-=.'_--***r';;!-._-,-. -, :: :tL:3: -, .a :.: _-_:-_4 I 7 * allegations against the petitioners' It is further submits that the learned Magistrate after due application of mind to the material on record including the alfidavits filed on behall of respondent No'2' passed the docket order which is under challenge by assigning reasons' He submits that the reasons need not be elaborate and it would suffice' He submits that the powers under Section 482 of Cr'P'C'' are to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and there are no such circumstances' calling for interference by this Courtinexerciseofinherentpowersandtherefore,the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed'

11. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties and upon careful examination of material available in this case it goes to show that tkre de-facto complainant is sleeping partner of the said firm and taking advantage of the accused Persons created fabricated the sarne, by forging the signature of the de-facto Further, there is no incriminating evidence complainant found_o1 record to implicate the petitioners in forgery' However, on thorough verification of the docket order documents c ?, passf d ir.,, the learned dated 25.r1, | .2021, it is passerl t}: c, glvlng alr-\ r: aborative reasoning. Magistrate vide its doc <et order noteworthy that the trial ( )sll11 hs5 tmPugned docket order mecharlic:all,) without

12. The I (cited s -rpr: taking <:o qr should yJi...e complairrt, 156(3) or- rh impugnect r1o cognizanc3 a reasoning. H Sri,ratsava -;::: Jr n'ble Supreme Court in priyanka , had ca tegorically givt rzance asain",,n" o.;:,""::T:',.: : detailed reasoning after going tL rou 3h the Jr cuments ald inves{.rgation under S ection e Cr.p.C. But, the tr courl h€rs r assed :r..et order dated 25.o1.ria-l sim;cly b'v t lking l:irinst the 0",r,,or.."'021 \4'ithout gi'ing any --1- ce , considering the Peculiar facts and of the case, this Court deemr; rt flt and rmPugned docket orde._ d rted circumstarrit its proper to s:t rLside the 25.01.2021

13. Accorc irrg,r. setting asidr r ht, Passed by th: leit I the Criminal Revision Case is allo.,ved b-y mpugned docket order datecl 25.O t..2C21 led trial Court. e, .-:+.- -1". 9 t I ; I I Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed. X# SdI. P. CH. N DE AGABH PUTY R USHA EGIS A I'TRUE COPY" SECNON OFFICER To, ; 1++tfii,i+$frffiffi *ilffi " H["#1 iii's:fl::r:: H#"iril"''s# "' - 6 r*o cD coPtes Kanr/gh :il';";:u^ " & HIGH COURI' DATED:22tO.tt2OZs I I ORDER CRLRC.No.9Z,4.of 2024 ':3 RTr, o o o o,+ * 01lut ru ,i (\ -i2') .a ., o eSt:-. - .- {'-,,' ..)/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASiE: ,ih* b Di 4