Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 520 (AP)

Paraman v. Chitra Devi

2007-06-05

P.MURGESEN

body2007
ORDER (Per P. Murgesen, J.) The revision petitioner has challenged in this revision the order dated 2-8-2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 766 of 2006 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti. 2. The revision petitioner is the complainant. He preferred a private complaint against the respondent/accused before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti. Two witnesses were examined. On consideration of the materials on record, learned DistriCt Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, came to conclusion that there is no material to hold that the accused had committed the offence under Sections 177, 182, 195, 199, 200,211, and 500 IPC and hence there is no ground to consider the case of the petitioner and rejected the complaint of the petitioner. 3. The complainant/revision petitioner is a resident of Usilampatti. In his complaint he has stated that the respondent was not related to him and the respondent and her husband lived together after marriage and there was some misunderstanding between them and the matter was brought before him to settle the matter but the petitioner was not able to settle the matter. So he withdrew from compromise talks between the couple. Further he would say that after the failure of compromise talk, the respondent gave a complaint against the petitioner on 17-9-2004. On 4-7-2005, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and released on bail on 7-7-2005. 4. The police officials, after enquiry fund that the complaint given by the respondent is not correct and it was referred as a false one. So it is clear that she intentionally preferred a false complaint. The two witnesses deposed the case of the complainant. 5. Learned trial Magistrate, found that there was no material on record to hold that the respondent had committed the offence and hence, he rejected the case of the complainant/ revision petitioner. It is settled law that merits of the case cannot be considered at this stage. The court has to find out the prima facie case against the accused. Learned trial Magistrate found that the complainant did not examine any witness in respect of crime No.1 080 of 2005 and came to conclusion that there is no evidence in respect of the above crime number. The court has to find out the prima facie case against the accused. Learned trial Magistrate found that the complainant did not examine any witness in respect of crime No.1 080 of 2005 and came to conclusion that there is no evidence in respect of the above crime number. On careful consideration of materials on record, I am of the view that the Magistrate had disposed of the case on merit and he has not considered the materials on recode properly and as per settled law. Hence, the order of the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order dated 2-8-2006 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1, Usilampatti in Cr. M.P. No. 766 of 2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh disposal without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.