APHC010429452022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 719/2022 Between: SMT. RAVURI PUSPAVATHI, W/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHODIMELLA VILLAGE, ELURU RURAL MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. 2. VEJJU VENKATA RAMA RAO, S/O. VEJJU GOOPALA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- SENIOR ASSISTANT D 8V E SECTION, COLLECTOR'S OFFICE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Impugning the order dated 12.07.2022 passed in S.R.No.596 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise)- cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant. 2. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent 2 No.2/State. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.1, none appeared on his behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that though Respondent No.2/Accused has committed the alleged offences, the Investigating Officer filed final report by referring the case as ‘false’. Learned counsel would further submit that, though there are specific allegations against Respondent No.2/Accused, the learned Magistrate without considering the same, erroneously dismissed the protest petition filed by the Petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that there are specific overt acts attributed against Respondent No.2/Accused and hence the impugned order of dismissal of the protest petition filed by the Petitioner has to be set aside and cognizance has to be taken against the Accused. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. As seen from the material placed on record, initially, the Petitioner herein lodged a complaint against Respondent No.2 herein alleging that the he along with the Police Personnel came to the disputed land, criminal trespassed into the said land, demolished the bathroom and when she questioned the same, the Accused insulted her modesty by touching her chest and pushing her. Based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.359 of 2019 was registered against Respondent No.2/Accused for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 354 IPC. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Eluru, after perusing the material and the investigation record in the said crime, vide 3 proceedings in C.No.997/Refer/SDO.E/2020, dated 24.10.2020, referred the case as ‘false’. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Complainant filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate’s Court, wherein, the learned Magistrate vide Order dated 12.07.2022 in S.R.No.596 of 2022 dismissed the said petition. 6. A keen perusal of the order in S.R.No.596 of 2022 would show that, the learned Magistrate clearly observed that, in the absence of any document to show that the subject property belongs to the Petitioner herein, the offence under Section 447 IPC would not attract against Respondent No.2 herein. It was further opined that, except the oral testimony of the Petitioner, there is no document to show the damage alleged to have been caused by Respondent No.2. Further, the protest petition is also silent with regard to the quantum of damage caused to the Petitioner by Respondent No.2 herein. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the alleged damage, the offence under Section 427 IPC also would not attract against Respondent No.2 herein. The learned Magistrate finally observed that, Respondent No.2 herein came to the house of the Petitioner to discharge his official duties and except the oral testimony of the Petitioner and the witnesses examined on her behalf, there is no material to speak about the attitude and behaviour of Respondent No.2 on the alleged date and hence, it cannot be said that he misbehaved with the Petitioner who was aged about more than 75 years. As such, the offence under Section 354 IPC would also not attract against the Petitioner. 4 7. As seen from the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record and passed the said order, which does not warrant any interference of this Court. Further, Respondent No.2 herein filed a case in Crime No.353 of 2019 against the sons of the Petitioner herein on 20.12.2019 and as a counterblast to the said case, the present case has been registered on 23.12.2019. Furthermore, the Police, after investigation, referred the present crime as ‘false’. There are no tenable grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Magistrate in S.R.No.596 of 2022 dismissing the protest petition and hence, the present revision lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:06.02.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.R.C.No.719 of 2022 Dt.06.02.2025 Dinesh