The Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a magistrate's dismissal of a private complaint against a Tahsildar alleging violation of an injunction. The court held the act was official and Section 197 CrPC applied.
The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as it failed on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
t
13217 |
iji{,]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CRIMINAL. REVISION CASE NO:468 OF2023
Between:
Pogula Rajaiah, S/o.Late Papaiah, age61 years Occ.Agriculture,F/o. Cheekode Village DubbakMandal, SiddipetDistrict
,..COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENT
t, t Tahasildar,O/o. Dubbak Mandal,Siddipet District.
...ACCUSED/RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision Case under Section 397/401of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filedin supportof the CriminalRevisionCase, the High Court may bepleased to setasidethe docket order dated06lOGl2O23 passed in CFR No. 94 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrateof First Class at Dubbak.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct the SHO Dubbaka PS to take legal actionagainst the respondentand investigate the matter and file the reportpending disposalof the revision petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. VIJAYALAKSHMIAGISAM
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLICPROSECUTOR
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CRIlVlIN REVISION CASE No. 468 0F 2023
ORDER:
'l'his Crimrnal Revision (lase has bccn frled under Sccrions 391 and 401 o[(]odc of(lriminal I)roccdure, 1973 (for sh<;rt "Cr.P.C.") challengng the ordcr dated 06.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.94 of 2023 on the File of thc learned Principal JudicialMagistrateoI FirstClass,Dubbak
\Trc
2
rce:lrLl tr) tl-tc suttschcdrrlc Pr()p(rtl cf 'r,c.00'5 g-tlntas lrl 1;r'.tr1,r.74,//r\A/-1;r\c.00.1iqutrLrs itr li1' 1,, , 51/t:.lr':" "\c 00 l l guntas in Sy.No.1 52-L ofCtriloda Villa1'j:,Dubbai:I{andal, Sid,lipet District,rvherein irr I.A'No.275o1- 2019,zrn ad intet'irn inir-rnction rvas gtantedresttainir-rg rhc deleodantsfrorn crea[irlg or affecting changes lnrespt:ctoF tllc suit schcc]uic plctperry untii Eling of rhc cout.ttt:rs.liurthcr, tlleI cvision ['ttiriorrer had scn'cd a c()p1, oi the order,(-)c thc accu-'c<l/'lahsildai-Dubbak' I lorveire,:, he entcrtainedmLrtation pr ocecdinusand 13r>tctltciecl thc names against the suitschedulcproi)crtYin thc revcnuc rccords irr violation o[the lniuncrion ordcr, thtrs hc is liable[or: per-ral action.-Ihus frledthe privatecomplai.rrt.
-5.-l'hc lcarncdN{agistr:rtchad cor-rsidctrng thc mnterials
placed on record andpasscdthe impugn,:tl docketotder on 06.06.2023 dismissing the complaint.Aggrieved thcteby,thc prescnt revision case hasbeen preflerrcd.
that inspite o[ the knorvledgc ofinterim ordcr in the suit as the 'l'ahasildar had made entrics ifl the rcvenue rccord, he shall be
liable for penal action. Howcver, Iearned Magistrate [ailed to
takc cognizancc without properly apprcciating thc matcrial lacrs '1'hus, prayed ftrr intcrvcntion in rcvision.
7 . Learned Additional Publ.ic Prosccutor would submit rhat the Tahsildar, as per the procedure and in exercise o[ authoriry vested in him got made entries in the revenue record and there are no mala hdes and in view o[ protectron under Section 197 of the Cr.l).(1., thc praycr For prosccuuon is nor maintainablc 'fhus, the impugned order is pcrlectly justified. 'I'herelore, thcrc is no tenabie ground for revision
8 I have carefulll, corr.td...U the pleadings o[ thc lcarned
counsel and the materials on record.
9.'l'he rcvision peutioncr/complainant had todged rhe
private complaint spcciFrcally against thc'I'ahsildar.'I'o note, the Tahsildar was not a parry co the suit proceedings much less in thc interlocutory application whercin ad interim injunction has been ordered.'fhe revision petitioner lor the reasons best knowo to
him had not raised any issue against the defendants/respondents
of the suit. Irurthcr, though it is theclairn o F therevlslon
' j-e q$+::l \
4
pctit-ioncr ';ltata co1-r1' ol the ad intcrtm irriunctronorderhas br:cn scivcLl()n thc'l'ahsildar,thc coLrnsclfairit. acireirs thtt thcrc is nrr nratcrial t( ) Dt'ovcsuchse n icc'
i0. Be tl-iat asi[ n-ray, thc ct.rrttcntionsof tl-'c rcvi:;io:lpetitir'nr-r are aq;tinst anact t.lone by the 'l'ahsilclet as part o[ his offrcial dutres. Sectio n197 of thc Cr.P.C. c(rntcml)latcsthat any i;crs<-rn aclirlg in thc dischargeoi his official dtrn 'n() Cou lt sh;rll tahc crlytizanct oran1 offcncc rvirhout Jrrcr.ioussarlclion of thc (j r,r.i:r.,rcn t. N6 avcrnrcnt in thc c6rnJliairrtrs ildicatlq thar lhc act of the'rahsildarw'as bcvtrnd the sc.prc 'rIhis '''f6cialdun'
on rccord and arrived atjust conclusirx.ln abscnce of any
impr:opnery rn the impltgned order, the CriminalRevision(lasc
Fails on nerit ancl accordingly, disurisscd.
)
;\s a sequel, pcnding misccllaneous petirions, i[ any, shall
stand closcd
td ti i li I ! SD/- T.SRINIVAS iljI 5 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 0:,tiit t' :'',, //TRUE COPY// v SECTION OFFICER
To,
1 . The the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Dubbak.
g
tf .t " I .ij [. tl ,.' l.iIt. r+l.j[. I !d
t .t,I it' tI t I I '{ a'
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:0s/09/2023
, .: ., l'; , $r rrxt[i Fil ?:t I : i ,. tu,: I : :. :r , fJ ii tl 1{ iii Ii iii, i' l;Fi Ia: 'a-' ffi i : :, r';:
ORDER
CRLRC.No.468 of 2023
t. lil. + i$ ril,i,i: t;-1 t,j ,t ilt,l +: 1;. l rl it. '!:',
1 $E srArF
(
q t
1 7 jAN 202[
ooJ
]]
i
t cc
OE S P,'^t Ctl
-I *. CRLRC IS DISMISSED
'6@
tb
:ii:i,:,l -. . I ll -;l Lti'd ,il.! " ],'!
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 197 CrPC is attracted when a complaint is filed against a Tahsildar for making entries in revenue records.
Whether the Tahsildar acted in discharge of his official duties while the complaint alleges violation of an interim injunction.
Whether the learned Magistrate acted correctly in dismissing the private complaint.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Pogula Rajaiah
State of Telangana
Salim Miya
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
