APHC010443062009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1266/2009 Between: V.durga Prasad ...PETITIONER AND D Srinuvasa Raju And 2 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C’) against the order dated 02.06.2009 passed in C.C.S.R.No.7 of 2008 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, (in short ‘the trial Court’) in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3-State. 3. Mr.T.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the revision argued that a prima facie case was established against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 through the evidence of L.Ws 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C’); the learned trial Court was erred in not taking cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint and dismissed the complaint; the learned Magistrate failed to see that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had intentionally deceived the complainant and taken away the substantial amount under the guise of purchase of land; the learned trial Court failed to take into account the gold ornaments taken away by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and misappropriated them. It is argued that the learned Magistrate passed an erroneous order and it is liable to be interfered, set aside and urged to issue directions to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as per law. 4. Per Contra Mr.N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 argued that the learned Magistrate having given appropriate and cogent reasons for not taking cognizance of the offence, dismissed the complaint correctly and such an order is not required to be interfered on whatsoever grounds and urged to dismiss the revision case. 5. Ms.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sailed with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and argued that the learned Magistrate had rightly passed the order and that no prima facie case was made out against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 took away money from the complainant for purchase of piece of land which doesn’t belong to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and urged to pass appropriate orders on that aspect. 6. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.3- State. Perused the record. 7. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the judgment in C.C.S.R.No.7 of 2008, dated 02.06.2009, passed by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 8. On perusal of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, the averments of the complaint do not clearly specify the alleged offence committed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and no prima facie case was shown against them to attract the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506, 420 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ It is trite that to attract Penal Provision of Section 420 of ‘the I.P.C.’, it must be established, atleast to show, that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had entertained a deceitful intention at the very first instance or from the very beginning of the transaction. It appears that the petitioner/complainant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are business partners. The learned Magistrate rightly observed that mere non-refund or non-return of money by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not suffice to proceed against them in view of their admitted business transactions. Either in the complaint or in the sworn statements of witnesses, the complainant atleast failed to aver, let alone establish or prove, the dishonest intention of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to either deceive or dishonestly misappropriate the money and gold ornaments. There was no material shown to proceed against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 506 of ‘the I.P.C.’, inasmuch as there are no allegations either in the complaint or in the sworn statements of L.Ws 1 to 3. The petitioner ought to have been more diligent in parting his money to his business partners. If at all the business partners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not returned the money and gold ornaments, the petitioner would have filed a civil suit for recovery of the said amount and property and for that there was no legal barrier. 9. In the sworn statements of L.W-4, he stated that his wife and L.W-2 were also present and as a token of receipt of Rs.12,00,000/- and 250 grams of gold, the respondents issued a receipt and that receipt would have been sufficient to go on with civil side for recovery of amount. Ironically, the petitioner had not chosen to resort to civil litigation. Instead of it, he filed a criminal complaint without any basis or substantial evidence or atleast the averments touching the ingredients of Section 406, 506 and 420 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The learned Magistrate had rightly appreciated the complaint and sworn statements of L.Ws1 to 4 and dismissed the complaints. 10. For the above reasons, there are no merits in this Criminal Revision Case and it is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 19.03.2025 M K K