A Magistrate must take cognizance of a complaint disclosing an offence and follow due process; failure to do so renders subsequent orders invalid.

ORDER:

V R K KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case, under sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 23.04.2021 in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2021 in C.F.No.81 of 2021 of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati, Chittor District.

2. Heard arguments of Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy, the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2/State.

3. Notice on respondent No.1 was served on 26.08.2023, none entered appearance.

4. On demonstration of illegality or impropriety or the correctness or otherwise of the proceedings taken up before the courts below, law calls for interference of this court in revisional jurisdiction. The present case at hand could be stated to be an example of all incorrect proceedings taken up by the court below. A brief narration of what happened before the court below would be sufficient for disposal of this revision.

5. For a tractor with its trolly bearing registration No.AP 03 CL 1204, originally, Sri B.Mallikarjuna is stated to be the registered owner. On 12.07.2018 for a valid consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, it was stated to have been sold to Sri S.Krishnaiah. Necessary documentation was done, and the transfer took legal effect and registration certificate for the vehicle was issued in the name of the purchaser. Thereafter, the purchaser Sri S.Krishnaiah obtained a policy of insurance from Oriental Insurance Company. The said S.Krishnaiah filed a complaint against his vendor/ Sri B.Mallikarjuna alleging an offence under section 379 IPC. He filed that complaint before learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirupati on 19.01.2021. In the complaint, it is stated that the accused/vendor was a rowdy sheeter and after the whole transaction was over, he was demanding him for an additional money of Rs.2,00,000/- and was blackmailing him. On 15.12.2020, the vehicle was found to be missing. The victim / de facto complainant went in search of it and found the vehicle at the house of the accused in Pillamedu Village. The victim approached the police but there was no needed response, and he lodged his representation in Spandana cell in Tirupati District on 21.12.2020 and they requested him to approach the court and therefore on 19.01.2021, he filed a complaint before learned Magistrate. Along with the complaint, he had annexed copies of the original sale letter, original certificate of registration, original insurance policy and a copy of the complaint, he lodged at Spandana.

6. Since the offence alleged is one under section 379 IPC/theft, it was expected on part of the learned Magistrate to enquire into and take decision to take cognizance or otherwise and in the event of taking cognizance to issue summons to the accused and act in terms of the procedure that is available for cases instituted otherwise than on police report which includes sections 244 to 247 of the CrPC, 1973. As is clear from the record, the learned Magistrate did not take any such steps. He did not enquire into the complaint and did not take cognizance of any offence. He did not summon the accused. He did not examine any one and he left the complaint as a complaint. He did not even register the complaint assigning a specific number to it and it remained in the office of the learned Magistrate as CF.No.81 of 2021.

7. However, a few things have happened aside from the complaint. The complainant filed an application under section 94 CrPC and that was registered as Crl.M.P.No.20 of 2021. The prayer portion in the said petition reads as below

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue warrant of search and seizure and the tractor and trolly bearing registration No.AP 03 CL 1203 by the concerned police for production before this Hon’ble court and pass appropriate orders accordingly.”

8. Learned Magistrate entertained that petition and passed an order dated 22.01.2021 after recording reasons. In the s