JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Ss. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to direct the 4th respondent/Commissioner of Police to register the crime and investigate as per provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") and adhering the guidelines passed by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court.

2. The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 190 r/w. Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the respondents 2 and 3 herein before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada (for short, "learned Magistrate") to direct the 4th respondent/3rdrespondent to register a crime for the offences under Sec. 468, 464 r/w. Sec. 471 IPC, wherein the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint vide impugned order dtd. 11/5/2023 in C.F. No.1782 of 2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant preferred the present revision.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent/Sub-Inspector of Police has filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.737 of 2016 pending before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada ("the trial Court") where the petitioner herein arrayed as an accused and this Court stayed the same. The trial Court furnished all the documents to the petitioner/accused, where it was found that the Seizure Report/Mahazar of the personal computer had a discrepancy. The Charge Sheet narrated the address, i.e. from the accused house at Water Tank Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada, but. In contrast, the Seizure Report states that the Computer was seized from House No.68, K.G.O. Colony, 5th Road, Patamata, Vijayawada.

(i) Subsequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, registered as Crime No.868 of 2015 at Patamata Police Station, for destroying the data in his computer. To that effect, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, C.C.S., Vijayawada, investigated the matter and rightly identified that the Computer had been seized from the House of the petitioner at Plot No.63, K.G.O. Colony, 4th Road, Vijayawada and filed a report that effect, which is pending. The investigation established that the Seizure report/Mahazar report in C.C. No.737 of 2016, pending before the trial Court, is fabricated and manipulated.

(ii) After receiving the copy of the report, the petitioner filed a complaint dtd. 7/9/2021 submitted on 14/9/2021 to the 4 th respondent against the 2nd respondent for his act of manipulation and fabrication of evidence, which is categorized as an offence under forgery under Sec. 468, 464 and 471 IPC. Later, the 4th respondent duly received the complaint and initiated an investigation without registering the crime before any Police Station. When the stage of marking the seizure/mahazar report, the petitioner objected to the marking of the document on the ground that there was a discrepancy in the documents, but the 3rd respondent, instead of correcting with their investigation officers, went on marking the document as it is genuine which falls under the offence under Sec. 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate, where the Court has power under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to pass directions to register the crime. After receiving the complaint filed as C.F. No.1781 of 2023, the learned Magistrate issued notices to the 3rd respondent, and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate rejected the complaint.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.1 and Sri Anand Kumar Kochiri, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the 1st respondent/complainant.

5. I have perused the material on record.

6. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Magistrate ordered notice to the respondents 1 to 3 therein before registering the complaint and referring the matter to the Police to hear the complaint's maintainability. It is the grievance of the petitioner/complainant that, at that stage, the learned Magistrate is not supposed to have ordered notice to the respondents.

7. Learned Cou