APHC010636242015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 489/2015 Between: 1. P.MEHATHAB, KURNOOL DISTRICT, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ALLAGADDA KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. PATAN AMERULLAKHAN BANAGANIPALLI TOWN 6 OTRS REP PP, S/O RASOOLKHAN AGED 48YRS, OCC: LECTURER RESIDENTS OF PATAN STREET, BANAGANIPALLI TOWN. 2. PATAN GULJHARKHATH, W/O RASOOLKHAN AGED 70YRS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENTS OF PATAN STREET, BANAGANIPALLI TOWN. 3. PATAN DOWLATHKHAN, S/O RASOOLKHAN, AGED 34YRS RESIDENTS OF PATAN STREET, BANAGANIPALLI TOWN. 4. SHAIK NYAMATH BEEJAN, KHADER BASHA, AGED 52YRS RESIDENTS OF PATAN STREET, BANAGANIPALLI TOWN. 5. SHAIK KHADERBASHA, S/O ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 60YRS RESIDENTS OF PATAN STREET, BANAGANIPALLI TOWN. 6. SHAIK SHAJAHAN SONA, S/O KHADERBASHA, AGED 25YRS R/O NEAR MADHUMANI HOSPITAL ROAD, NANDYAL TOWN. 7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD -2- Crl.R.C. No.489 OF 2015 . ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of CrPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Crl.Rc; aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.02/2011, dt. 17-122014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allagadda, Kurnool District. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA The Court made the following: -3- Crl.R.C. No.489 OF 2015 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 489/2015 ORDER: 1. This criminal revision case was filed by the de facto complainant against the order of acquittal, dated 17.12.2014, which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Allagadda, in C.C.No.2 of 2011. 2. Admittedly, the de facto complainant cannot file a revision against an order of acquittal though they had such an opportunity before the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 31.12.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he was confused by the observations of the different High Courts, wherein the right of a de facto complainant to file a revision had been noted. He further submits that the date of occurrence of the offence in the present case is 07.01.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No. 2 of 2011 by filing an appropriate appeal in accordance with law. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 6/accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 7th respondent/ State have reported no objection. 4. It appears that Calendar Case No.2 of 2011 was filed alleging offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. read with Sections 3 and 4 of -4- Crl.R.C. No.489 OF 2015 the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleged to have been happened on 07.01.2009. The judgment was passed by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate on 17.12.2014. Admittedly, the present petitioner was confused regarding prevalent law and approached this Court by way of this present criminal revision case. After amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure with effect from 31.12.2009, the petitioner, being the de facto complainant, is entitled to challenge an order of acquittal under the provisions of the Code, but not by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the present criminal revision case is disposed of as withdrawn. 6. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction in accordance with law to challenge the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class in C.C.No.2 of 2011 dated 17.12.2014, by filing an appeal. 7. The petitioner is further directed to approach the appropriate forum within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If such an appeal is filed within the stipulated period, the delay, if any, shall be condoned by the concerned Court by invoking the provision under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dt.07.04.2026 BV