IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that criminal courts should ensure that proceedings are not used for settling civil disputes and should distinguish between civil wrong and criminal wrong.

JUDGMENT

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J. - This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('for short 'Cr.P.C') to set aside the dismissal order in Criminal Revision Petition No.38 of 2012 passed by the learned XI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada on 11/12/2013, confirming the order of dismissal dt.5/6/2012 passed in C.F.R.No.1850 of 2012 by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada and direct the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the complaint by issuing process against the respondents.

2. The facts in issue are that the petitioner had taken the land to an extent of Ac.5.65 cents from one K.Sayamma who is the lawful power of attorney holder of the original landlady K.Sravya and obtained a loan eligibility card from the Revenue Authorities. Thereafter, some misunderstandings arose between the petitioner and the landlady, as such, the petitioner filed A.T.C.2 of 2012 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal, Gudivada, and obtained injunction orders on 13/2/2012. One day prior to granting of an injunction, R.1 to R.4 (A.1 to A.4) trespassed into the land and committed theft of Black Gram crop. With the help of R.5 to R.7 (A.5 to A.8) by misusing their official positions, a case was registered in Cr.No.28/2012 against the petitioner and others. Though the petitioner gave a police complaint against the respondents, the Police did not register the crime against the respondents 1 to 4. As such, the petitioner filed a private complaint under Ss. 378 and 447 r/w 34 IPC against R.1 to R.4 and Sec. 379 , 120 (a) (b) IPC against A.5 and A.6 and Sec. 167, 120 (a) (b) IPC against A.7 and A.8 in C.F.R.No.1850 of 2012 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudivada to punish them as per law.

3. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Sec. 202 Cr.P.C and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for an investigation by a criminal Court. The scope of enquiry under this Sec. is restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether the process has to be issued or not and the scope of enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. The learned Magistrate based on the said statutory principle conducted enquiry, examined the complainant and two other witnesses, and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant came to the Court with unclean hands and the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and there is no prima facie case made out against the accused and the statements of the witnesses do not inspire the confidence of the learned Magistrate and no prima facie is made out to take cognizance against A.1 to A.8 and dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.38 of 2012 on the file of the learned XI Additional Sessions Judge, Gudivada, and the same was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned Magistrate by giving cogent reasons that the petition is vexatious and is nothing but abuse of process of law without there being any proper and valid document to show his rights which has to be decided by a Civil Court and the revision petition lacks merit and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and the revision petition is dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error while evaluating the evidence of L.Ws.1 to 3 whose sworn statements were recorded and also failed to evaluate the documents filed along with their evidence. Inspite of having a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted th