Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J.C.Prabhakar Reddy, Ananthapur Dt., vs Mrs.L.Manjula Chief Manager, Sbi Anr, ... on 11 November, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2545 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C'), questioning the order in C.C.No.442 of 2017 dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri, Anantapuram District.
The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.09.2014 the defacto complainant/first respondent, the then Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Tadipatri lodged a report against the petitioner/accused stating that he has closed SBI ATM which is located by the side of C.B. Road near R & B Guest House, Tadipatri Town on the ground of shabby premises and after coming to know the defacto complainant along with her PDB Manager K. Srinivas, RBD Manager Ms. Farida Shahawar and ATM incharge Dudekula Shasha Vali approached the accused and the accused informed them that he is maintaining neatness in Tadipatri Town and requested the bank officials to cooperate with him and asked them not to put papers and vehicles on the road in front of the bank. Basing on the said report, a case in Cr.No.332 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of I.P.C came to be registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Town Police Station. The MSM,J Crl.R.C.No.2545 of 2017 2 Sub-Inspector of Police Sri B. Venkateswarlu investigated into the case and examined the witness and recorded their statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
On 16.09.2014 at about 11:00 AM, the defacto complainant again approached the said Sub-Inspector of Police and gave representation wherein she stated that they would like to clarify that they needed only police protection for the smooth functioning of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Tadipatri and they did not request for registration of any case against the accused.
The police filed final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, closing the report and thereupon, a protest petition was filed on receipt of a notice which was dismissed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri in C.F.No.1431 of 2016 in R.C.S.No.22 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016, Crl.R.P.No.78 of 2016 was filed by the defacto complainant questioning dismissal of protest petition by the Magistrate on various grounds.
The VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur at Gooty upon haring argument of both the counsel, set-aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri in C.F.No.1431 of 2016 in R.C.S.No.22 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016 and directed the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri to take cognizance for the offence punishable under MSM,J Crl.R.C.No.2545 of 2017 3 Section 353 and 506 I.P.C against the petitioner/accused to proceed further under Section 204 Cr.P.C and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as early as possible. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C. against the petitioner/accused and issued summons to the accused vide docket order in C.C.No.442 of 2017 dated 05.07.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the present criminal revision case is filed raising several contentions.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy contended that, the order in Crl.R.P.No.78 of 2016 dated 23.06.2017 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, Gooty, directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri to take cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C against the petitioner/accused, to proceed further under Section 204 Cr.P.C is a glaring illegality exfacie and requested to set-aside the same, without touching the other aspects.
During hearing, learned Public Prosecutor contended that, issue of such direction is an illegality in view of the judgment of this Court in Polisetty Padmavathi v. T. Mallikarjuna Gupta1.
1 2006 Law Suit (AP) 1217 MSM,J Crl.R.C.No.2545 of 2017 4 Fairly, Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/defacto complainant agreed with the contention of learned Public Prosecutor to the extent of passing an order directing to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C and to proceed further under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Thus, there is absolutely no controversy with regard to illegality in the direction issued by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, Gooty. Taking cognizance by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, adhering to the direction is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Polisetty Padmavathi v. T. Mallikarjuna Gupta (referred supra). Therefore, by applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, the order to the extent of directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506 against the petitioner/accused to proceed further under Section 204 Cr.P.C is liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, the following portion of the order passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, Gooty in Crl.R.P.No.78 of 2016 dated 23.06.2017, is set-aside:
"Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri is directed to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 506 against the petitioner/accused to proceed further under Section 204 Cr.P.C"
MSM,J Crl.R.C.No.2545 of 2017 5 Consequently, the order of taking cognizance by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, in C.C.No.442 of 2017 dated 05.07.2017 is hereby set-aside, while directing the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri is directed to apply his/her mind to the facts and to take cognizance by perusing the material on record and proceed further in accordance with law.
In the result, criminal revision case is allowed-in-part, setting aside the order to the extent stated above.
Consequently miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 11.11.2020 Note: copy by 18.11.2020 SP