APHC010782202015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2721/2015 Between: 1. MUNUSWAMY RAVI, S/O. MUNUSWAMY, AGED 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR PHR PRINTING PRESS, GUMMIDIPUNDI, TAMILNADU STATE ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P REP PP, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, Through Inspector of Police, CID, Guntur,Guntur District. . ...RESPONDENT 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 prefer against the Docket order passed in CrI.MP No. 2699 of 2014 in CC No.18 of 2007 on the file of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur. IA NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP 4169 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in CC No.18/2007 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, pending disposal of the Main Criminal Revision case, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2721/2015 O R D E R: 1. The instant Criminal Revision Case (for short Crl.R.C) has been preferred against an Order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the concerned Judicial Magistrate i.e., VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.2699 of 2014 in Calendar Case (for short C.C) No.18 of 2007. 2. The brief facts of the case is that- The present petitioner arrayed as an Accused in the said Calendar Case No.18 of 2007. The trial has already been commenced, out of 132 witnesses 72 witnesses already examined. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C) to discharge the petitioner as A1 alleging inter-alia that the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the case, since the First Information Report (for short F.I.R) of the case was submitted before court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and commission of offence has been taken place at the place of Tamilnadu and Hyderabad. On the basis of the prayer of the petitioner, the learned court below has heard the parties and also learned APP of CID. 3. On perusal of the report, the learned Court below is of the opinion that the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.5 got split-up from C.C.No.17 of 2007. Thus, the C.I.D, Hyderabad has 3 jurisdiction to prosecute the crime against the present petitioner. The learned Court below, on such opinion has dismissed the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Hence this instant Criminal Revision case. 4. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the impugned Order passed by the learned court below. 5. To determine the legality and illegality of the impugned Order passed by the learned court below, Provision of Section 239 Cr.P.C., is relevant. “S. 239. When accused shall be discharged. - If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing”. On plain perusal of the provision under Section 239 Cr.P.C., it appears that after consideration of police report and documents sent by the investigating agency, if it appears to a Court that the charge against an accused is groundless, then the Magistrate concerned may discharge that Accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6. In this particular case, admittedly the charge against the present petitioner is not groundless. The petitioner only alleged that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain. However, on the police report, the learned Court below has satisfied that Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain the crime against the present Petitioner. The several materials 4 suggest that the Charge against the present petitioner is not groundless. 7. Considering the same, I find no justification to interfere with the observation passed by the learned Court below. 8. Accordingly, the impugned Order suffers no illegality or impropriety, thereby the instant Criminal Revision Case being groundless is hereby dismissed and disposed of. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated:08.12.2025. KS. 5 125 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 2721/2015 DATED:08.12.2025. W KS