ORDER Heard Mr. T v. Ramana Rao, leamed

Order

- I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN - CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15970 of 2024 / ORDER Heard Mr. T. V. Ramana Rao, leamed counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, the Public Prosecutor

appearing fbr Respondent No. l, and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar appearing for Respondcnt No. 2.

2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter'BNSS') seeking to quash the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No 53of 2024 inCrl.R.P.(SR)No. 138 of 2024 passedbythePrincipal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint dated

06.11.2023 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('CrPC') against the Petitioners. The said private complaint was filed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate ol First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally ('leamed Magistrate'). l

4. In the private complaint, Respondent No. 2 alleged that Petitioner No. t, the then Chief Minister of Telangana and Petitioner No. 2, the then Minister for [rrigation Departmcnt were in-charge of the construction of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project ('project'). He alleged that on 21.t0.2023, the pillars in the 07'h block of the project started sinking. Altcr which, water supply through the project was sropped. The National Dam Safery Authority had conducted an investigation and submitted a report dated 0l .11.2023 on the state olthe pro.ject. Based on the report dated 01.11.2023, Respondent No.2 a[egcd that the construction of the project began without proper consultation with the engineers and without adhering to their advice. Further, ir was alteged that soil test was conducted by drilling rhe core. The project was allegedly constructed on'sand soil'which would not have bome its weight. Respondent No. 2 also alleged that the project was ailotted to M/s GENCO who have no experience irr building dams and irrigation projects. Based on these allegations, Respondent No. 2, stated that the Petitioners in conspiracy with other accused had misappropriated public money and caused huge loss to the state \ 7 -) exchequer. [n the private cornplaint, Respondent No.2 also stated that he had filed a complaint dated 25.10.2023 before the Station House Officer, Bhupalapally. However, as no action was taken, he had filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 120- 8,420,386,406, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').

5. On 15.12.2023, the sworn statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded, wherein he reiterated the contents of the complaint. Thereafter, the Magistrate vide order dated 12.01 .2024 dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. In the said order, the Magistrate noted that the allegations against Petitioners constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PCA'). Therefore, only the Special Court constituted under the PCA will have jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint. The learned Magistrate noted that the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was retumed earlier on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, Respondent No. 2 stated that the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction as only olfences under the IPC had been alleged. 4 6 Aggrieved by the order dated r2.0r.2024, Respondent No. 2 lrled a criminal revision under Section 397 ol. the CrpC. While scrutinizing the revision petition filed by n"rplna"n, .;.';.';;; office of revisional Courl raised an objection datcd, 04.04.2024 regarding its maintainability and returned the same. l{owever, Respondent No. 2 resubmitted the petition on the ground that the revision is maintainable as both the Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent revisional jurisdiction.

7. It is pertinent to note here that the revision petition was given a temporary filing number _ SR No. l3g/2024. Furrher, rhe impugned order was apparently passed in an application bearing Crl.M.P. No. 5312024 in SR No. l3g/2024. This Court had calted for the record of the revisional court and could not find any application which was numbered as Crl:M.p. No. 53/2024. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why an order was passed in Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024 and what Crl.M.p. No. 53/2024 was.

8. Notwithstanding the error of giving the caption of Crl.M.P. No. 53/2024, the revisional court vide irnpugned order d,ated 10.07 .2024 overruled the objections on maintainability and \\ ) directed its office to number the criminal revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2 to be numbered. Further, the revisional court had directed issuance of notices to the Petitioners and other accused. In the impugned order, the revisional courl noted that the project falls within the jurisdiction of Mahadevpur police station which in tum falls within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrare of First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally. Therelbre, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally had jurisdiction. Further, relying on Section 200 of the CrPC, the revisional courl held that a Magistrate has power to take cognizance of cases even triable by a Sessions Cour1. In such cases, the Magistrate will take cognizance and commit the same to the appropriate Sessions Court. Therefore, the revisional court held that the Magistrate was empowered to take cognizance. This Court stresses here that these findings were given by the Sessions Court while deciding the objections raised by its office regarding the maintainability.

9. Assailing the order dated 10.07.2024, the Petitioners have filed the present criminal petition. 6 IO. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS: -!i By virtue of the impugned order, the leamed Sessions '.'.| Judge had re-opened the question ofjurisdiction whicli is imperrnissible. u The impugned order is without legal basis and is based on surmises and conjectures. The said order reflects non_ application of mind. lll. The impugned order renders unwarranted findings thal the dismissal of the complaint will send a wrong message to the society. lv. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrpC is limited. There was no error apparent which warrants exercise of such jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadur,. Ch. Raghunandan Rao v. State of Telangana2, and K. prutlhvi v. K. Srava n th i3. I2024 SCC Online sc 2283. 'zoz: 12gLo 1611 .) 4:,2 tTS) '2022 (2) A L'B (Crl. ) 806 (TS) 1 7 -Y I1. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDE NT NOS.l AND 2: The Respondents supported the reasoning given by the revisional couft in the impugned order. They contended that the revision petition was maintainable. ll. Further, Respondent No. 1 through its counter affidavit stated that it shall abide by any order passed by this Couft. FINDINGS OF THE COURT

12. As discussed supra, the present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the impugned order, dated

10.07.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2024 in Crl.R.p.(SR) No.l38 of 2024 of leamed Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Jayashankar Bhupallipally. Vide the aloresaid order, leamed revisional Court having overruled the objection taken by its office with regard to mainlainabitity of the revision made some observations.

13. There is no doubt about the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the crpc. It is welr settled that the said jurisdiction is extremely timited and can be exercised only 8 to test the legality, comectness, or propriety ofany finding. Furlher, Section 391 (2) of the CrPC expressly bars exercise of revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders. It is perlinent to note that a revision petition is maintainable against orders which result in the closure or culmination of criminal proceedings. In other words, a revision is maintainable against final orders. In this regard, the lollowing paragraphs of K. Prudhvi (supra) are relevant: \ lzl. Thcrefore, lrom the decisions of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of Section 397 of the Cr.p.C., orden may be classified as interlocutory orders, intermediate orders and final orders.

15. To further clar ify, an interlocutorv order is the one which is interim and tem t)orary in nature. It is the op posite of a final order. In other words, an interlocutory order will not result in culmination or termination of final Droceedinss. Interlocutorv orders are merelv ancill arv orders which are decided at thc interim stage and such orders aid in decidins the final rishls and liabilities of the parties. 16. An order passed in an interlocutory application during the intermcdiate stage of the proceedings might decide thc rights and liabilities ofparties. Such an order though interlocutory has to be termed as an 'intermediate order'. An interlocutory application can be decided either ways. If it is decided in one way it might be an 9 interlocutory order, but if the same is decided the other way it might result in culmination of proceedings. Therefore, interlocutory applications where the orders might result in culmination of proceedings shall be lrealed as intermediale orders against which a revision applical.ion under Secrion 397 (2) of the Cr.p.C. is maintainable [see Girish Kumar Suneja,s case (supra)].

14. In the present case, the Petitioners contend thar the revision is not maintainable. However, such a contention is misplaced. Admittedly, the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vicle order dated 12.01 .2024 on the ground ol jurisdicrion. The dismissal of the private complaint is final in nature. Such a dismissal makes criminal proceedings non-existent. Therefore, as the learned Magistrate's order is hnal in nature, the revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2 is maintainable.

15. As this Court held that the revision petition is maintainable, the Sessions Court was justified in directing the revision petition to be numbered. However, in the impugned order, the Sessions Court had made some unwarranted l0 observations touching upon the merits ofthe case. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraph is extracted below l 13 . In thc prescnt case. the leamed Principal .Iudicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally not took thc cognizancc but cxarnined the petitioner under Section 161 of CrPC and disrnissed the petition instead of return the petition to file before proper Court, For want ofjurisdiction. The Court of Sessions is not having power to take the cognizance directly unless the case cornmitted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class to him. So this Court of Sessions cannot take the cognizance on filed by the Revision Petitioner. If this Court considered the submissions of the petitioner and sent the same remittal back to the lcamcd Principal Judicial Magistrate of F'irst Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpatly cannot review his own order again. There is no uscful to the petitioner for setting aside the order passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. In my opinion that all are equal bclorc the law. If this petition returned without proper enquiry, then wrong messages goes in the society. To make confidence on the Judiciary, it should taken as revision petition against aggrieved orders passed by thc learnedPrincipal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, as it is Judicial Order. In crirninal law, revision is a legal remedy that allows a superior court to examine the \ , II legality and propriety of an order passed by a subordinate Court. The procedure for filing a revision in crirninal law is provided under Section 397 and Section 40 I of the Code ol Criminal Procedure, I 973. 'lhe Hon'ble High Courl and Court of Sessions are having concurrent jurisdictions to entertain Revision Petition to ascertain legality and propriety of orders. However, without registering the Criminal Revision Petition and without giving opportunity to the Respondents, could not adjudicatc the above issues. hence, the office is hereby directed to register the Criminal Revision petilion against the orders in SR.No. 2165/2023 Dt: 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally and issue notices to all respondents accordance with law through proper challan and Station House Officer, PS., Bhupalpally, on payment of process. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

16. As can be seen from the above paragraph, while directing the revision petition to be numbered, the Sessions Courl made observations regarding the competence of the leamed Magistrate to take cognizance and commit the same to the Sessions Court. Further, it observed that no useful pulpose would be served if the matter is remanded back to the Magistrate. Likewise, the t2 Sessions Couft also stated that , wrong message will be sent to the society'

17. In this Court,s opinion, such observations are unwarranted and touch upon the merits of the case. These observations indicate that the Sessions Court had already made up its mind about the outcome of the case. These observations_cum_ findings could not have been given at the preliminary stage when the only question before the Sessions Court was whether the revision petition was maintainable.Further, as the Iearned Magistrate had dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on the ground ofjurisdiction, the Sessions court in revision has to decide the limited controversy as to whether the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the private complaint on the ground of lack ofjurisdiction. In the present case, the Sessions Court in its zeal to send a ,right message to the society, has rendered findings prejudicial to the case of the accused. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Sessions courl is liabre to be set aside as far as these observations_cum_findings are concemed. l3

18. During the course of the hearing, the counsel for the Petitioners informed this Court that the private complainant Respondent No. 2 had died. Leamed counsel for 2nd respondent aiso confirmed the said fact. Relying on Kushal Kumar Talukdar v. Chandra PD. Goenkaa, he contended that on death of a private complainant, the proceedings cannot continue. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor contended that even when a co,rprainant dies, the criminal proceedings continue. He relied on Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v. State of Maharashtras and Chand Devi Daga v. Manju K. Humatani6 and Sanjit Kumar Mishra and others vs. Ranjit MishraT. The contention of the petitioners, counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons stated below.

19. Under Section 256 of the CrpC, it is only in summons_ cases that the death of the complainant wirr resurt in an acquittal of the accused. All other cases which are warrant-cases, the death of the complainant will not result in an acquittal. This can be seen in Section 249 of the CrPC. '1zoos.y : cln +l t. ! roozy r scn so;. lzorr; r scc zr. 7 Crl.Rev.No.579 of20t I dated 06.09.2022 of the High Court ofOrissa at Cunack ./ l.+

20. A warrants-case is defined under Section 2 (x) of the CrPC as an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, and imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. A summons_case is defined under Section 2 (w) of the CrpC as a case not being a warrants case 2t For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are extracted below: 2 (u) "summons-case'' means a casc rclating to an ofTence, and not being a \r,arrant-case; 2 (x) "wanant-case" means a case relating to an offence punishable rvith death, imprisonment lorlife or imprisonment for a tenn exceeding two vears;

249. Absence of complainant.-When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on aiy dayfixed lor the hearing ol the case. the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully cornpounded or is not acognizable oflence. the Magistrate may, in his discretion,notw.ithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at anyime before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused_

256. Non-appearance or death of complainant._(1) If the summons has bcen issucd on compliint, and onthe day appointed lor the appearance of the accused, or anv day suhsequen( therelo Io uhich the hearing may beadjoumed, the complainant does not appear, thl Magistrate shal[, notwithstanding anyhing hereinbefore contained,acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other dav: -r I5 Provided that wherc the complainant is reprosented by a pleadcr or by thc officcr conducting the prosecution orwhere thc Magistrate is ol opinion that the personal attendance of thc complainant is not necessary, the Magistratemay, dispense rvith his attendance and procecd rvith thc case. (2)'l'he provisions olsub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases rvhere the non-appearance ofthe complainant is due to his dcath.

22. In the present case too, the question remains whether the alleged offences constitute a warrants-czlse or a summons-case. As no cognizance is taken in the present case and the revision is pending befbre the Sessions Court, this Court does not deem it appropriate to decide whether the offences alleged in the private complaint constitute a summons-case or a warrant-case. Such decision will invariabty lead this Court to consider the contents of the private complaint which is impermissible considering only the order dated 10.07.2024 is under challenge. In the event, the Sessions Court allows the revision petition and remands the matter back to the leanred Magistrate and the leamed Magistrate, on considering the case on merits, takes cognizance of the alleged \ offences and those offences do not constitute a warrants-case, it will be open for the Petitioners to raise the issue of death of the complainant and its effect under Section 256 of the CrPC. I6

23. In view of the above discussion, the present criminal petition is disposed of with the following terms: , \l 't \ i i I i. ii. The revision petition before the principal Scssions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapalll, ar Bhupalapally Districr flled bv Respondent No. 2 is maintainable; The irnpugned order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.p. No. 53 of 2024 in Crl.R.p.No. (SR) No. l3B ol2024passed by the Principal Sessions Judge. Jayashankar Bhupala pally at Bhupalapally District is set asidc to the extent of observations made in paragraph nurnber l3 olthc said order; iii. The principal Sessions Jud,qe, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District is directed to dccide the criminal revision petition bearing crl.R.r,. No. 02120 24 (earrier numbered as Crl.R.p. No. (SR) No. llg of 2024) srricrly in accordance with law. Consequently, miscellaneous peiitions pending, if any, in these Criminal petitions shall stand closed. Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, CTION OFFICER 1 2 The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. Two CCs to the Public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. [OUT] ./

3. One CC to Sri T. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VC/PSL \Q , i*ttttll :&ttr&t I l HIGH COURT DATED:18 t}3t2}2s 't \ ORDER CRLp.No.lSITO of 2024 1 HE SI4 16: \ d zrJuilM 7 C) S PATCYT rC l_ DISPOSING OF THE CRLP 4"4k[ \ct- xM