THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:524 of 2010 ORDER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order, dated 05.02.2010 in R.C.S.No. …of 2010 in Cr.No.24 of 2009 of Kallur Police Station, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pakala, ordering for further investigation by higher police official i.e., Inspector of Police, Pakala. 2. The said order was passed to know the genuineness of thumb impressions of the executants of the gift settlement deed that they belonged to the Complainant/Respondent or not and if necessary by sending the thumb impressions of executant of the said gift settlement deed and the complainant to the forensic science laboratory and file a report as early as by 26.02.2010. 3. Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the Petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision, argued that the learned Magistrate passed the order outside the scope of ‘the Cr.P.C’ exceeding his jurisdiction by directing the investigation to be done by the Inspector of Police, but not by Sub-Inspector of Police and urged to allow the petition. However, he reported that he does not have fresh instructions in this matter, when this Court confronted the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kallur Police Station and the statements given by the Petitioners and Respondent No.1, pursuant to the directions of this Court on 06.03.2025. 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 4. Mr.Chaitanya, learned Counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that the matter may be disposed of as per the statement of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 given to the police. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities or illegalities, and it is not required to be interfered and set aside. 6. This Court on 06.03.2025 directed the Station House Officer, Kallur Police Station as under: “The Station House Officer, Kaluru Police Station, Chittoor is directed to submit the report about the status of P.Munemma, W/o Late P.Subbaraju, who was aged about 50 years when the revision was filed, R/o Digavoor Village, Kammanapalle, Eganoor Post, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District, who was complainant in Cr.No.24 of 2009 and P.Munilakshmi, W/o Late Rajendra, who was aged about 52 years when the revision was filed, R/o Pagadala IndluMangalampeta Post, Pulicherla Mandal – Accused No.2 and G.Venkataramaiah, S/o PeddlaSiddaiah, who was aged 50 years when the revision was filed, R/o HarijanawadaMangalampeta, Pulicherla Mandal – Accused No.4 and the stage of investigation, if any, in the above crime. Post on 27.03.2025.” 7. On 24.4.2025 this Court observed as follows: “Report from the Station House Officer, Kaluru Police Station, is received along with the status of the petitioners and respondent No.1 who submit that they have no grievance in this Criminal Revision Case. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 requests time for getting instructions. None appeared for the petitioners. Post on 01.05.2025, under the caption ‘For Orders’.” 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 8. The Sub Inspector of Police, KallurPolice Station submitted a report along with statement of P.Munemma/ Respondent/ Complainant, P.Ravi/ Petitioner No.1 /Accused, P.Munilakshmi /Petitioner No.2 /Accused No.2, G.Subbaiah/Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 and G.Venkataramaiah/Petitioner No.4/Accused No.4. In all the statements they state that they have no grievance in the case either to prosecute or defend the revision case. Statement of the Respondent/Complainant reveals that she resides with her elder son P.Ravi/Accused No.1/Petitioner No.1. Her husband Subbaraju had purchased the property to an extent of Ac.0-90 cents in Sy.No.262/7 in her name from P.Chinnabba of Mangalampeta and got registered the same on 09.03.1988 in her name. She thought that in between from 29.01.2009 to 20.02.2009 her elder son by name P.Ravi created forged documents and got changed his name on the said property with the help of P.Munilakshmi, G.Subbaiah and G.Venkatramaiah of Mangalampet, on account of it, she sent a complaint against them through the Hon'ble JFCM Court, Pakala, Chittoor District to Kalluru Police Station. 9. Further, it is stated that on her complaint, the Kalluru Police registered a case in Cr.No.24/2009 against them for the offences punishable under Section 468, 420 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 156 (3) of ‘theCr.P.C.,’ and said case was referred by the police officials as civil in nature. About this land dispute, she filed civil suit in O.S.No.50 of 2009 on the file of the Hon'ble Court, Pakala, after due trial, the Hon'ble Court passed an order in favor of Ravi. After death of her husband, she resided at Tirupati with her brothers Rajanna, Ramu and 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 Babu. She feared about her son would not look after her welfare, as she gave a complaint against her son and A-2 to A-4, who signed on the agreement as witness, and she has been residing with her son since 2011. She did not file any revision petition No.524/2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. She thought that her brothers filed this petition without contacting her. There is no necessity to take any action in Cr.No.24/2009 of Kalluru Police Station. The property to an extent of Ac.0-90 cents came through Court in O.S.No.50/2009 and now her second son by name P.Chandra has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said property. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Magistrate has got ample power to direct the Inspector of Police to conduct investigation. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, and it does not require any interference from this Court. 11. In view of the above, nothing remains in this Revision Case for further adjudication. Therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 01.05.2025 VTS 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.524 of 2010 Dated 01.05.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.524 of 2010 Date: 01.05.2025 VTS