THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.570 OF 2024

ORDER:

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2024 in C.C.No.834 of 2006 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhongir.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other accused stating that he is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.20.35 guntas in Survey Nos.492 and 496, in Bibinagar. It is further stated that the petitioner is trying to sell his land to third parties by creating fake GPA. The office of the Sub- Registrar refused to register the documents due to the forged GPA. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2005, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 175, 177, 201, 204 and 420 read with 511 and 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.834 of 2006, before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.

3. During the pendency of C.C.No.834 of 2006, the police filed a petition, vide Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2024, before the trial Court under Section 302 of the Cr.P.C. to replace Thota Venkateshwara Prasad, son of the complainant Thota Balwant Rao, who passed away and dispose of his evidence and to mark documents submitted by the prosecution. After hearing both sides, the trial Court, vide order dated 28.02.2024, allowed the petition with a condition that the prosecution can continue on behalf of the deceased complainant and the representative of complainant can assist the Assistant Public Prosecutor in presenting evidence, but cannot replace the deceased complainant. Challenging the said order, the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case.

4. Heard Sri Bikki Raveendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri M.A.K. Mukeed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. with the condition that to allow Thota Venkateshwara Prasad, the son of the complainant, to assist the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the case. He further submitted that the trial court failed to provide reasons for this decision and that there is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C. that permits the son to continue the prosecution after the death of the complainant. He further submitted that in general, according to Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., if the complainant dies, the case may be treated as an order of acquittal. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order dated 28.02.2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2024 in C.C.No.834 of 2006 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Bhongir.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the trial Court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and prayed this Court to dismiss the criminal revision case.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submitted that the trial Court has rightly passed the order and that as per Section 302 of Cr.P.C., the power is conferred on Magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal revision case.

8. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhariwal Industries Limited v. Kishore Wadhwani and others, [(2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 378], w