A Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. due to the express statutory bar under Section 341(2) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates a statutory appeal instead.

ORDER

1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge – cum – Metropolitan Magistrate, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.1908 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019, dated 01.08.2023.

2. The petitioner is the petitioner – plaintiff and respondents are the respondents – defendants in I.A.No.1908 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019.

3.1 The petitioner - plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1908 of 2021 in O.S.No.64 of 2019 under Sections 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C to make a preliminary enquiry into the offences under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of IPC which appears to have been committed in respect of verification which has been solemnly affirmed and annexed to the written statement dated 08.07.2019 and subsequently filed and submitted in the proceedings of the above said suit.

3.2 Respondents – defendants have filed counter and opposed the application.

4. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 01.08.2023 has dismissed the application which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court could not have adjudicated the disputed questions on merits which precluded the rights of the parties at the preliminary stage and could have postponed adjudication of the petition to be decided along with the suit upon evidence or relegated the parties to work out their remedies separately and independently. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Sections 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C, where under the petitioner sought for a preliminary enquiry for the offences under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of IPC. Preliminary enquiry is required to be held into the offences referred to under Section 195 of IPC, it is not a mere case of sufferance of injury but is interference with due course of justice. It is a case of deliberate falsehood and the trial Court overlooked the same. The Trial Court ought to have seen that by pressing documents the respondents sought to establish their possession and managed to get the same. Counsel to substantiate her contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma , (1995) 1 SCC 421, (ii) Sachida Nand Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and another , (1998) 2 SCC 493, (iii) Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others , (2003) 6 SCC 675, (iv) Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil , (2010) 8 SCC 329 and (v) Union of India Vs. Haresh V.Milani and another , (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 2080

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents – defendants contended that CRP itself is not maintainable, even otherwise learned Trial Court has gone into the matter in detail and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner - plaintiff. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another , (2005) 4 SCC 370, (ii) Jose Kuruvinakunnel Vs. A.T.Jose , 1996 Supreme (ker) 411, (iii) Darastul Khalif Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others , (2008) SCC OnLine Jhar 315, (iv) V.A.Rocky Vs. Pavunni and Others ⁹2014 Supreme (Ker) 758 and (v) V.Ramesh Babu, Advocate, Khammam Vs. State of A.P. Rep.by P.P., High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, 2019 Supreme (Telangana) 351

7. Counsels on record have filed their written submissions in support of their contentions.

8.1 It is apt to note here that the Registry has returned the CRP on 22.09.2023. The endorsement of the Registry is as under:

“CRP.SR.No. 36947/2023

Please verify and clarify how this CRP.SR is entertainable U/Art 227 of Constitution of India against the order