APHC010191092022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 337/2022 Between: Modegunta Rama Chandraiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SS RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking to challenge the Order, dated 02.02.2022 passed in C.F.No.109 of 2021 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ against respondent No.2/accused, alleging that respondent No.2/accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 162, 170, 177, 193, 196, 197, 198, 209, 406, 470, 419, 426, 465, 468, 472, 473, 474, and 500 of ‘the IPC’. The petitioner/complainant is now about 72 years of age and respondent No.2/accused is about 75 years old. When this Court asked the petitioner/complainant about the possibility of settlement, he, through his counsel, stated that he did not wish to settle the matter. However, respondent No.2/accused voluntarily expressed his willingness to settle the dispute. Since the petitioner/complainant did not express any willingness to compromise, this Court did not make any effort to refer the matter to mediation. 4. The learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore dismissed the complaint on two grounds: first, that the petitioner/complainant had not filed a supporting affidavit along with the complaint; and second, that the petitioner/complainant had not approached the concerned Revenue Officials, despite alleging that their signatures had been forged. Regarding the first objection, the complaint was filed by the complainant through counsel before the learned Trial Court. It is not a case where the complainant, as a 3 layman or party in person, filed the complaint personally. When the complainant is represented by counsel, it is the duty of the counsel to verify the record and ensure proper compliance while filing a criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-filing of an affidavit is a curable defect, and that the learned Magistrate ought to have afforded one more opportunity to the complainant to file an affidavit along with the complaint. 6. It is not incumbent upon the learned Presiding Officer of the Trial Court to advise or suggest the petitioner with respect to the filing of relevant documents. When the complainant is represented by his counsel, it is the bounden duty of the counsel to comply with procedural requirements while filing the complaint. The learned Trial Court rightly pointed out that the complaint was not supported by an affidavit. With regard to the second contention that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint, when respondent No.2/accused had allegedly fabricated the official seals and forged the signatures of the MRO and RDO, on a careful perusal of the complaint, there is no reference to the petitioner/complainant having approached the concerned MRO or RDO to bring to their notice that their signatures had been forged or that certain documents had been fabricated. 4 7. In the order dated 21.05.2016 relating to case No.Dis (E3) 582/2013 on the file of the Joint Collector, it was made clear that the parties were directed to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their respective rights over the landed property. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made a representation to the Collector on 27.09.2019. After submitting the representation to the Collector, Nellore District, on 27.09.2019, and receiving no positive response, the complainant did not approach appropriate fora for adequate relief. It is for the Revenue Authorities, such as the RDO or the Joint Collector to determine whether signatures were fabricated or official documents were forged. The complainant cannot directly approach the learned Magistrate alleging that the accused fraudulently created forged pattadar passbooks and title deeds. 8. The learned Magistrate rightly observed that there was no material on record to conclude that the complainant had made out a prima facie case against respondent No.2/accused for the offences alleged in the complaint. The learned Joint Collector also concluded that the dispute is civil in nature and that no grounds existed to impose criminal liability on respondent No.2. The learned Magistrate therefore rightly declined to refer the matter to the police for investigation or to take cognizance of the alleged offences. As there were no valid or reasonable grounds to proceed against respondent No.2, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the complaint vide order dated 02.02.2022. 5 9. There are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court. The petitioner/complainant ought to have filed the complaint along with the mandatory affidavit before the learned Trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Judgment. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 25.11.2025 S D P 6 172 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.337 of 2022 Date:25.11.2025 S D P