Mahendarkar Krishnaji Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1471 of 2006 ORDER:

1. This revision case is filed by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 23.3.2006 passed in C.C.No.45 of 2004 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet.

2. The petitioner-complainant filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, against respondents Nos.2 to 9. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of the petitioner-complainant passed the following order: "Complainant present. A1 absent. Petition filed and allowed. A2 to A5 present. Hon'ble High Court of A.P. quashed the proceedings against A6 by order dated 18.11.2004 passed in Crl.P.No.4066 of 2004. Case against A7 and A8 was dismissed on 24.1.2006. Complainant is examined as P.W.1. He reported no further evidence on his behalf. Learned Counsel for accused present. Learned Counsel for complainant absent. Complainant submitted that his learned Counsel is absent today since his father expired. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the matter is compromised out of court between himself and A1 to A5. A1 is the own brother of complainant. There is no prima facie material in the evidence of P.W.1 to frame charges against A1 to A5. A1 to A5 are discharged under Section 245 Cr.P.C."

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed this revision.

3. Heard and perused the material available on record.

4. On perusal of the order under revision, it is obvious that the case against A7 and A8 was dismissed by the Court below and the proceedings against A6 were quashed. Insofar as the other accused viz., A1 to A5 are concerned, the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of P.W.1, discharged them. From the order, it is evident that even though the petitioner-complainant deposed before the Court below against A1 to A5, but he informed that the matter was settled out

of Court. Considering the said fact, the learned Magistrate discharged A1 to A5. This Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J 18th July 2016 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1471 of 2006 18.7.2016 Nn