APHC010396572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 892/2024 Between: 1. CHINTHAGUNTA KRISHNA,, S/O. DEVASAHAYAM, 56 YEARS, HINDU, SC, GOVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.N0.8-4-371/B/142, AARADHI NAGAR, BORABANDA, HYDERABAD. PRESENTLY R/O. ANKAMMA NAGAR, GUNTUR -4. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. BONTHU SUJATHA, W/O. LATE CHANDRA SEKHARA REDDY, HOUSE NO. 15-14-1/B, SRI SIVA NAGA SAI RESIDENCY, 3RD LANE SHOP - EMPLOYEES COLONY, RTC COLONY ROAD, GUNTUR. 3. MUKKU NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. TIRUPATHI REDDY, ERSTWHILE MANAGER, AMARAVATHI HOSPITAL, OLD CLUB ROAD, GUNTUR -1, PRESENTLY OWNER OF VISION DIAGNOSTICS, 5TH LANE, GUNTURUVARI THOTA, RIGHT SIDE OF TULASI HOSPITAL, KOTHAPET, GUNTUR. 4. DHARANIKOTA EDUKONDALU, S/O. LATE KOTESWARA RAO, D.NO. 15-4-30, 2ND LANE, VENKATARAOPETA, NEAR RAMALAYAM, GUNTUR. 5. KOTA NAGENDRA RAO, S/O. SUBBA RAO, ERSTWHILE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAPETA, GUNTUR -1 AND 2 PRESENTLY WORKING AS TRAFFIC SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NARASARAOPETA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Revision filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the orders passed in CFR No.8231/2022 dt. 29-05-2024, on the file of the court of the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur and allow the Criminal Revision Case on the file of this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 892/2024 JUDGMENT: The present Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set-aside the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CFR No.8231 of 2022, by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur, dismissing the private complaint filed by the petitioner seeking to take cognizance of the offence under Section 211 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 4. 2. Heard Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner, who is working as Assistant Director in the Office of the Director of Sugar, Government of Andhra Pradesh and residing at Saradhi Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, had prior acquaintance with the family of late Bonthu Sambi Reddy, as they lived in his house earlier. After the death of Sambi Reddy, disputes arose regarding property given to his son Chandra Sekhara Reddy, husband of A1 Bonthu Sujatha. It is alleged that A1 Bonthu Sujatha, along with A2 Mukku Nageswara Reddy, A3 Edukondalu, and A4, the then Sub- Inspector of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur, conspired to falsely implicate the complainant/petitioner in Crime No.307/2017 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC by fabricating a complaint, creating false documents, and alleging that the complainant obtained thumb impressions of Chandra Sekhara Reddy in 4 Amaravathi Hospital to grab property. Based on the said case, the complainant was arrested, charge-sheeted, and tried in CC No.752/2017, wherein he was initially convicted under Section 420 IPC, but subsequently acquitted by the appellate court on 12-03-2021. The complainant contends that the entire case was maliciously instituted to harass him, extort money, and damage his reputation, including by publication in newspapers, causing mental agony to him and his family. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a private complaint before the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence under Section 211 of IPC. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision case has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate in C.F.R. No.8231 of 2022 dated 29.05.2024 is contrary to law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the learned Magistrate erred in observing that the revision petitioner failed to satisfy the essential ingredients required to attract an offence under Section 211 IPC. The learned Magistrate failed to consider that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.752 of 2017 dated 16.03.2020, and that the petitioner was acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. by judgment dated 12.03.2021. It is further submitted that all the accused had colluded and conspired to falsely implicate the revision petitioner in the said case with an intention to bring him to the terms of the accused. The 5 learned counsel also contends that there are no contradictory statements made by the petitioner and that the private complaint was not based on any new grounds, but on the same set of facts already on record. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions and contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner herein has put forth a new set of grounds which were not raised during the course of Trial or in the appeal. The learned Trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not make any observations on the said grounds, though the petitioner had ample opportunity to raise them at the time of Trial and appeal. Hence, the present revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the submissions made and on a keen perusal of the material on record and the impugned order, it is observed that the learned Magistrate has clearly taken note of the fact that the contentions now raised in the private complaint were very much available to the petitioner during the course of trial in C.C. No.752/2017. However, whether such contentions were actually raised during trial has not been placed before the Court, as the depositions are not made available, which indicates that the petitioner is raising these grounds at this stage. The learned Magistrate has further observed that on perusal of the grounds of appeal, the said contentions do not find place therein and a perusal of the appellate judgment also shows that the 6 appeal was allowed on different grounds, namely that the husband of PW1 was not examined, PW2 failed to identify the appellant, and the prosecution did not examine the duty doctor or hospital staff. The learned Judge further observed that there were contradictions in the statement of the complainant with regard to the issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a well-reasoned one based on sound legal principles. The learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion in accordance with law, and there are no valid grounds warranting interference by this Court in revision. The present revision case is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.05.2024 passed in CFR No.8231 of 2022, by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 06.03.2026. UPS 7 230 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No: 892/2024 Dt.06.03.2026 UPS