The dismissal of a private complaint renders proceedings non-existent, allowing a revision to be maintainable, while courts should not comment on merits at preliminary stages.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mr. T.V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Palle Nageshwar Rao, the Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent No. 1, and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar appearing for Respondent No. 2.

2. The present criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘ BNSS ’) seeking to quash the order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 53 of 2024 in Crl.R.P.(SR) No. 138 of 2024 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally at Bhupalapally District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Respondent No. 2 had filed a private complaint dated 06.11.2023 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) against the Petitioners. The said private complaint was filed before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jayashankar Bhupalapally (‘learned Magistrate’).

4. In the private complaint, Respondent No. 2 alleged that Petitioner No. 1, the then Chief Minister of Telangana and Petitioner No. 2, the then Minister for Irrigation Department were in-charge of the construction of the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project (‘project’). He alleged that on 21.10.2023, the pillars in the 07^th block of the project started sinking. After which, water supply through the project was stopped. The National Dam Safety Authority had conducted an investigation and submitted a report dated 01.11.2023 on the state of the project. Based on the report dated 01.11.2023, Respondent No. 2 alleged that the construction of the project began without proper consultation with the engineers and without adhering to their advice. Further, it was alleged that soil test was conducted by drilling the core. The project was allegedly constructed on ‘sand soil’ which would not have borne its weight. Respondent No. 2 also alleged that the project was allotted to M/s GENCO who have no experience in building dams and irrigation projects. Based on these allegations, Respondent No. 2, stated that the Petitioners in conspiracy with other accused had misappropriated public money and caused huge loss to the state exchequer. In the private complaint, Respondent No. 2 also stated that he had filed a complaint dated 25.10.2023 before the Station House Officer, Bhupalapally. However, as no action was taken, he had filed a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 386, 406, and 409 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (‘IPC’).

5. On 15.12.2023, the sworn statement of Respondent No. 2 was recorded, wherein he reiterated the contents of the complaint. Thereafter, the Magistrate vide order dated 12.01.2024 dismissed the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. In the said order, the Magistrate noted that the allegations against Petitioners constitute offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PCA’). Therefore, only the Special Court constituted under the PCA will have jurisdiction to entertain the private complaint. The learned Magistrate noted that the private complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 was returned earlier on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, Respondent No. 2 stated that the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction as only offences under the IPC had been alleged.

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2024, Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. While scrutinizing the revision petition filed by Respondent No. 2, the office of revisional Court raised an objection dated 04.04.2024 regarding its maintainability and retu