An order summoning an accused in a criminal case is not an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue and there must be sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), by the petitioners, who are the accused/A-1 to A-3 in P.R.C.No.32 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Guntur, concerned to Crime No.244 of 2012 of Nagarampalem, Guntur Urban Police Station, feeling aggrieved by the docket order dated 04.09.2017 ordering summons to the petitioners/A-1 to A-3.

2. The petitioners herein are the accused/A-1 to A-3 whereas the 1st respondent herein is the complainant in P.R.C.No.32 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur.

3. The 1st respondent/ complainant filed a private complaint on the file of the Court of the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur under Sections 190 & 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 509 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3(x)(i) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Circle, Guntur District for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the complaint was registered as a case in Crime No.244 of 2012 by the Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur Urban for the offences punishable under sections 323,509 read with 34 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. & S.Ts.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 and investigated into the case and filed final report into the Court referring the case as false. Pursuant to the notice issued, the 1st respondent/ de facto complainant filed objections before the Court below. The Court below, on 04.09.2017 passed the impugned orders ordering summons to the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 observing that the material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3 under Sections 506, 323 of IPC and section 3(x) of S.Cs. &S.Ts. (PoA) Act.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

5. The contentions raised by the petitioners in this Criminal Revision Case, in brief, are that, the final report, which was filed after thorough investigation, discloses that the de facto complainant filed the complaint with false allegations only at the instigation of one Shaik Naazir Basha, who has illicit intimacy with the de facto complainant and who was indebted lakhs of rupees to the 2nd petitioner/A-2. The 1st respondent/ de facto complainant is a Court employee and she worked for sometime in the Court below and thus the action of the Court below is biased, impermissible and void abinitio. The Court below ought not to have taken into consideration the protest petition, which contains baseless allegations, in taking cognizance of offence. The impugned order is erroneous and it is illegal, arbitrary and passed without assigning any reasons. Hence, prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the order impugned.

6. Heard Sri Atchutananda Dondeti, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ de facto complainant and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-State.

7. Sri Atchutananda Dondeti, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned order was passed by the Court below in a mechanical way and without assigning any reasons. He would further submit that the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, having found that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant had illegal intimacy with one Nazir Basha, who owed lakhs of rupees to A2- Bhashyam Venkata Apparao, and at the instigation of the said Nazir Basha she has foisted this false case against the petitioners/ accused to give criminal colour to the civil disputes between the parties. However, the Court below erroneously took into consideration the protest petition and