ORDER:

The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.No.404 of

2009, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavolu.

2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nidadavolu, under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(for short “Cr.P.C.”), for taking action against the respondent/accused, for the offences punishable under Sections

420, 386, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”). 3. Learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation. The police have filed a final report stating that the case is civil in nature. Aggrieved by the said act of the police in referring the case as civil in nature, the petitioner herein filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. To examine the complainant and the witnesses, the Court below has granted as many as 13 adjournments and directed the complainant to appear before the Court to commence pre-charge trial by passing conditional order dated 13.05.2014 and the case was posted to 24.06.2014 and on 24.06.2014, the complainant was called and no representation on his behalf. Therefore, the Court below was constrained to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused.

4. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, dismissing the complaint and acquitting the accused, the petitioner herein, who is the complainant in C.C.No.404 of 2009, filed the Criminal Revision Petition No.57 of 2016, on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, with a delay of 140 days. However, learned Sessions Judge has condoned the delay of 140 days and the case was taken on file and eventually, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant, observing that illiteracy and innocence of the petitioner/complainant is not a ground to set aside the dismissal order, which was passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. Aggrieved by the order in Crl.R.P.No.57 of 2016, which was dismissed for the aforesaid grounds by conforming the order of the learned Magistrate, the present criminal petition was filed on the ground that dismissing the revision petition amounts to abuse of process of law and the Court ought to have given one opportunity to prove his case by way of proceedings, before the learned Magistrate.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused would submit that the present criminal petition is not maintainable, on the ground that against the acquittal order, which was passed under Section 256 of Cr.P.C., an appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable before this Court, on obtaining leave under Sub-Section (4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. Instead of that, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur, which is not maintainable. Therefore, he urges to dismiss the criminal petition, as the very filing of the criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court is not maintainable.

7. As per Section 256 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. Therefore, it shall be treated as an acquittal. Against the acquittal, the petitioner has to file an appeal before the High Court under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., on obtaining leave under Sub-Section(4) of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. As rightly contested by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/respondent, the revision petition, which was filed before the Sessions Court, is not maintainable.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date:21.11.2023

KBN

RAO THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.327 OF 2018 Date:21-11-2023 KBN