Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 439 (AP)

Mamidi Venu Madhav v. State of A. P.

2008-06-30

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2008
ORDER This Revision case has been filed by the complainant being aggrieved by the order dated 8-02-2008 passed in C.C.Sr. 1128 of 2008 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Lower Court alleging that some Muslim people were torturing themselves by inflicting injuries over their bodies, cutting with blades or by beating themselves with some ropes, by crying loudly and also instigating the minor children to do the same act for their inflicting injuries to themselves on the eve of their religious festival and thereby resorted to commit grievous crime in the name of God of their religion and so sought direction to the Police to do investigation in this case for taking necessary action to curb the same evil and unlawful activities. 2. No specific instances have been mentioned. No accused has been shown and no victim's name has been mentioned and no victim was cited as a witness. The learned Magistrate after going through the complaint observed as follows: "The complainant is neither aggrieved person nor a witness to the commission of any offence. He filed this complaint by questioning the religious activities of a group of persons belonged to a particular community Muslim as if they were torturing to themselves and also the others by instigation on inflicting injuries to themselves by beating or cutting with blades on their bodies. But, it is not explained by the complainant how the same -, is commission of any offence. No cognizance can be taken against vague and baseless allegations." 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no need to mention the names of the accused under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is sufficient if it is mentioned that a particular instance happened for the Magistrate either to refer to the police or to take cognizance of the offence itself and to order an enquiry about the allegations made in the complaint. 4. The complainant refers to the religious activities of a predominant community in a part of Hyderabad without specific instances about the type of weapon used and the nature of injury caused. The complaint under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. The lower Court rightly dismissed the complaint. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The complaint under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained. The lower Court rightly dismissed the complaint. There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.