Medikonda Mohana Rao, v. The State of Telangana
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment set aside a docket order issued by a Magistrate which purported to take cognizance based on a pending private complaint without disposing of that complaint or recording witness statements as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the lower court to proceed in accordance with law.
What did the court decide?
The docket order dated 06.04.2017 was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with law after necessary enquiry.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Crl.R.C.No.2198 of 2017
ORDER:
Learned senior counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that no delay condonation petition was filed, since the revision case is filed after lapse of 22 days. The said delay can be condoned on oral application. Therefore, the delay in filing the revision case is condoned on oral application since the proceedings were decided by this Court in Crl.P.No.4088 of 2017 and the present revision case is filed immediately after disposal of the said criminal petition.
- This revision case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C questioning the propriety, legality and regularity of the docket order, dated 06.04.2017 in Crime No.58 of 2015 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur issuing process to A2 to A5 on payment of process fee. 3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A4 and A5 and other accused, but the police after completion of investigation filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the Magistrate on 16.03.2016 and thereafter, a private complaint is filed by the 2nd respondent alleging that the investigating agency did not investigate the matter properly and deleted the names of the petitioners/A4 and A5 from the array of the accused and therefore, requested the Magistrate to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioners and take cognizance against them for the offences punishable under various provisions of IPC. While the private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is pending before the Judicial Magistrate by way of protest petition
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Magistrate could issue process on the basis of a pending private complaint without first passing orders disposing of the complaint.
Whether the issuance of process without recording statements of witnesses following Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. rendered the order illegal and irregular.
Whether the revisional court should set aside the docket order due to procedural illegality and irregularity.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioners/A4 and A5
- respondent
2nd Respondent
Coram
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLRC/2198/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court