APHC010461172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: Between: P Vimala Desai The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following 1. The Criminal Revision Case of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the appellant / complainant, seeking to set aside the objections raised by the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), in C.F.R.Nos.513 and 514 of 2024 Trial Court to proceed with 2. The petitioner filed a complaint agains Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1080 & 1083/2024 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR following COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Revision Cases, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the seeking to set aside the objections raised by the Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), in of 2024 respectively, and consequently, direct the the criminal cases in the interest of justice. The petitioner filed a complaint against Respondents 2 and 3 under Cr.P.C., read with Section 193 of IPC (pertaining to IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed on behalf of the seeking to set aside the objections raised by the Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), in and consequently, direct the in the interest of justice. t Respondents 2 and 3 under (pertaining to 2 perjury), before the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court returned the complaint, questioning its maintainability. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that revision petitioner has filed complaint cases before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur but the complaint cases were returned on several occasions questioning its maintainability. 4. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the complainant has complied with the objections made by the office, yet the complaint cases are being returned frequently on one ground or the other. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the revision cases are not maintainable. 6. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. The docket proceedings of the Trial Court reveal that the petition was returned multiple times, each time with various objections. Initially, the Trial Court returned the complaint on 01.07.2024, citing issues regarding its maintainability. On 05.07.2024, the petitioner resubmitted the complaint. However, the Trial Court again returned it with the following endorsements: (i) how this complaint is maintainable without passing any final order in this suit? (ii) Correct provision of law to be noted, (iii) Rule 58 of CRP not complied and (iv) How these documents will be entertained without filing proper petition in original suit. On 29.07.2024, the petitioner once again represented the complaint, attaching a separate neatly typed sheet. Nevertheless, on 28.08.2024, the Trial Court returned the complaint, noting that the previous objections had still not been addressed. 8. A perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the Trial Court has not passed any order but has returned the complaint cases on multiple occasions. This Court is of the view that, in the interest of justice, the Trial 3 Court should have first assessed whether the complainant had complied with the objections after the complaint cases were represented. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that returning the complaint cases without a substantive order is contrary to the law. This Court finds merit in the petitioner's argument. If the Trial Court determines that the complainant has not addressed the objections, it should have passed an order on the maintainability of the complaint after providing an opportunity for a hearing, rather than repeatedly returning it. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of with a direction to the revision petitioner to present the complaint cases before the Trial Court and argue on their maintainability. The Trial Court is directed to properly consider the maintainability of the complaint cases and pass appropriate orders, avoiding the practice of mere return endorsements. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 07.04.2025 SAK 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.1080 & 1083/2024 Date: 07.04.2025 SAK