A Magistrate's inquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is limited to identifying whether a cognizable offence is disclosed, without delving into civil rights or ownership issues prematurely.

ORDER :

This criminal revision case is filed by the revision petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl.SR.No.3369 of 2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a private complaint in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging commission of various offences under the Indian Penal Code and Sections 81 and 82 of the Registration Act by A1 to A14, with a prayer to refer the complaint to the SHO, Maheshwaram for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The case of the complainant, in substance, was that he and one Muzaffar Hussain Khan were the absolute owners and possessors of the petition schedule lands, having purchased the same in the year 2005 under Agreements of Sale–cum– Irrevocable General Power of Attorney. It was alleged that despite subsisting stay orders granted by the High Court in earlier writ proceedings and despite the lands being reflected as prohibited properties, the A.P. Bhoodan Board and revenue authorities illegally treated the land as Bhoodan land, issued passbooks in favour of private individuals, and facilitated successive transfers culminating in execution of sale deeds in favour of A12 to A14. It was further alleged that though a complaint was given to the police and acknowledgment was issued, no FIR was registered, compelling the complainant to approach the Court.

3. The trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and framed the point for consideration as to whether the complainant was entitled to have the private complaint referred to the SHO, Maheshwaram for investigation. Upon detailed consideration, it was noted that the documents relied upon by the complainant, namely Agreements of Sale–cum–Irrevocable General Power of Attorney, did not convey title and, therefore, the complainant’s claim of absolute ownership and locus standi itself was doubtful. It was found that the alleged “categorical directions” of the Revisional Court for investigation into multiple offences were not borne out from the certified copy of the order produced. Further, though several offences were mechanically listed against A1 to A14, the complaint and the sworn statement lacked specific factual averments, overt acts, and necessary allegations of criminal intent attributable to the accused. It was observed that multiple writ petitions were already pending with respect to the subject land and that the dispute essentially pertained to civil and statutory issues concerning title and alleged illegal transfers by a statutory body.

4. On an overall appreciation of the complaint, sworn statement, and documents, the trial Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out for directing investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., as the allegations were vague, omnibus, and devoid of material particulars constituting the alleged offences. Holding that the private complaint lacked merits and that the appropriate remedy lay elsewhere, the trial Court dismissed the private complaint. Hence, this revision case.

5. Heard Sri Lateef Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manik Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 and 14, and MS. Achyuth Bharadwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.15.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 17.01.2024 passed in Crl.S.R.No.3369 of 2023 is illegal, improper, incorrect, a