Shaik Dastagir , Siddique v. Mohd.Shahed Ali Khan

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2287 of 2016 ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., by the petitioner/complainant against the docket order, dated 27.09.2013, passed in C.C.(SR).No.5599 of 2013, by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, whereby the learned Magistrate returned the C.C.(SR).No.5599 of 2013 as the complaint is not maintainable. 2.

On 27.09.2013, the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed the following docket order in C.C.(SR).No.5599 of 2013:

"How the Complaint is maintainable when the complainant who was accused in CC No. 30/11 who acquitted only benefit of doubt. Hence, this case is returned."

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is accused in C.C.No.30 of 2011, which was instituted by the police on the report given by the ex-wife of the petitioner, Smt. Imran Siddique. The said case was registered under Sections 324 and 506 IPC and in that case, trial took place and the 1st respondent, who was deposed as P.W.5, stated in his Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he does not know the petitioner in the said case and that he found the ex-wife of the petitioner crying when he was walking. He further deposed that he found the petitioner fleeing away from the site. Subsequently, in the cross-examination, it was elicited that the 1st respondent/P.W.5 is the uncle of the ex-wife of

the petitioner. The learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, found the accused not guilty for the offences under Sections 324 & 506(2) IPC and acquitted him vide order, dated 25.11.2011, in C.C.No.30 of 2011. 4.

The petitioner filed the C.C.(SR).No.5599 of 2013 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the 1st respondent to refer the complaint to the Station House Officer, Nampally Police Station, Hyderabad, for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. since he gave false evidence before the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.30 of 2011 and therefore, he is liable for punishment under Sections 167 & 197 IPC. The learned Magistrate returned the said complaint on the ground of maintainability as the petitioner was acquitted on benefit of doubt by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.30 of 2011, vide order, dated 25.11.2011. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.

5.

Heard and perused the material available on record. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acquittal of the petitioner under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. does not disentitle him from prosecuting the case for giving false evidence by the 1st respondent and prays to set aside the impugned docket order.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal

revision case is not maintainable before this Court and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.

8.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case stands closed.

____________________ RAJA ELANGO, J Date: 29th August, 2016 KL

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2287 of 2014 Date: 29th August, 2016 KL