IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, emphasizing the need for substantial justification in criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Respondents/ Accused Nos.1 to 8, seeking quashment of the Order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows:

a. Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet in C.F.R.No.2445 of 2017 and after recording the sworn statements of L.Ws.1 to 4, learned Magistrate dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.01.2018 on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to issue process against them.

b. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Magistrate, Respondent No.2 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018 before the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Guduru. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition vide Order dated 10.03.2021 setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing him to take the complaint on file for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379, 427, 506 (ii) and 452 IPC.

Grounds Sought for Quashment

3. Impugning the Order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.10 of 2018, the Petitioners/Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 8 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the said Order on the following grounds:

a. The order of reversing the dismissal of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2, is illegal, improper and incorrect.

b. Even if the entire allegations are taken in its entirety, they do not constitute any offence much less the alleged offences against the Petitioners herein.

c. The learned Sessions Judge should have seen that the contents of the private complaint clearly which show that it is a civil litigation which was coloured as a criminal offence.

d. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the Petitioners never entered into any sale agreement with Respondent No.2 and his men and none of the documents are filed by Respondent No.2 to show that the Petitioners have come along with one Venkatanarayana at the time of payment made by Respondent No.2.

e. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have seen that the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses do not disclose about the date of alleged attack by the Petitioners on Respondent No.2 and in whose presence it was done.

f. The learned Sessions Judge should have seen that discretion was given to the learned Magistrate when he received the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the revision scope is very limited to reverse the Order passed by the learned Magistrate.

g. Initiation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Eerla Sateesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Prudvi Raju Mudunuri, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, and on appreciation of the material on record, the learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the complaint. It is also stated that the complainant carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court, wherein the dismissal order was reversed and a direction was given to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 379, 427, 506 (ii) and 452 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that a revisional court is not supposed to re-appreciate the evidence. Therefore, the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from illegality and prays to set aside the said Order. In support of his contention, learned counsel f