The court held that a protest petition should be dismissed if the dispute is predominantly civil and lacks prima facie evidence of criminal offences, and such a decision by the trial court does not warrant interference in a revision petition.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.75 of 2023 in Crime No.131 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/defacto complainant filed a complaint alleging that he had purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.7.16 guntas in Survey Nos.251, 252/B and 263 of Keshavapur village from one Muthineni Kishan Rao in the year 2008 and subsequently gifted a portion of the land to his sister through a registered gift deed. Later, he came to know that the accused had allegedly created a forged simple sale deed dated 14.02.2004 in respect of the same land and used it before the RDO, Husnabad to challenge the patta pass book issued in his favour. As the police initially failed to take action, the complainant approached the Court, which referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation, and accordingly Crime No.131 of 2021 was registered by Akkannapet Police for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B of IPC. However, after investigation the police filed a negative final report. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a protest petition, and the learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., held that the dispute appeared to be predominantly civil in nature and that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out, and consequently dismissed the protest petition. Challenging the said dismissal order, the defacto complainant has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of trial Court dismissing the protest petition is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case and that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate oral evidence of the complainant and other witnesses and ignored the documentary evidence placed on record. He further submitted that the complainant had produced revenue records such as patta passbook, title deeds, tax receipts and Dharani records, which clearly establish his title and possession over the subject land. He contended that the vendor, Muthineni Kishan Rao, categorically denied executing any sale deed in favour of the accused, which prima facie shows that the accused had created a forged document and that the trial Court, without applying its judicial mind, mechanically dismissed the protest petition instead of directing the police to proceed against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 120B IPC. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, after considering the material available on record and the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., rightly concluded that the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil in nature. He further submitted that the complainant failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 and 120B IPC. He contended that the police, after conducting investigation in Crime No.131 of 2021, filed a negative final report and the trial Court, upon inde