APHC010168722015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 19/2015 Between: 1. MUMMIDIVARAPU VENKATESWARA RAO, E.G.DIST., S/O. MEERA SAHEB, CASTE. SC-MADIGA, TEACHER, Z.P.HIGH SCHOOL, ALLAVARAM, RIO. CHEYYERU AGRAHARAM, KATRENIKONA MANDAL. EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. P P HYD, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LAKSHMI SHANKAR RAYAPUREDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 19/2015 ORDER: Assailing the judgment passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2012 dated 05.01.2015 confirming the judgment dated 01.10.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram in C.C.No.83 of 2008, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revision Case. 2. The parties are being referred to as per their positions before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. Delving into the details of the case, basing on the reports given by the accused, a case in Crime No.25 of 2006 was registered of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C’). At the culmination of the trial, having considered the material placed before it, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Court, Amalapuram acquitted the accused in S.C.No.451 of 2006 and recommended for initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused herein of the offence under Section 211 of I.P.C. Accordingly, a complaint under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) was given by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram of the offence under Section 211 of I.P.C. 4. At the culmination of trial, having considered the material placed including the evidence of the Superintendent of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Court, Amalapuram and the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the reports of accused of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C in Crime No.25 of 2006 against the accused therein, the trial Court found the accused guilty and 3 imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. When the said judgment was challenged by the accused, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District dismissed the same by confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Upon perusing the material placed on record including the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the judgment passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada in Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2012 dated 05.01.2015 is legally sustainable in facts and law or suffers from any material irregularity? 7. This case arose out of the main case in S.C.No.451 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge's Court, Amalapuram. Basing on the reports given by the accused alleging that his sister is wife of accused No.1 therein and for the unbearable harassment made by the accused No.1 therein, his sister committed suicide and accordingly, the said reports are registered as a case in Crime No.25 of 2006 of the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the I.P.C. After committal, the case was registered as S.C.No.451 of 2006 and at the culmination of trial, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram acquitted the accused therein for the said offences. In that case, having admitted his signatures, accused denied contents of both the reports and resiled from the contents of the reports and statements given before the police. Accordingly, by assigning simple reason that it is not even stated by the accused that he was under wrong or mistaken impression that his sister might have been died due to some harassment made by the accused therein, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram came to conclusion that the accused having mentioned 4 the harassment made by the accused therein towards his sister in both the reports, he had not supported the case of prosecution and it is clear that the accused gave deliberate false reports to police and therefore, it is necessary to launch prosecution against the accused for the offence under Section 211 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram forwarded complaint under Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code to the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mummidivaram. 8. It is opposite to mention here Section 195, 340 of the Code and 211 of I.P.C. As per Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Section 340 of the Code outlines the procedure for a court to inquire into and prosecute offences effecting the administration of justice, such as perjury, forgery or fabricating false evidence specified under Section 195 (1) (b) and such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and given evidence before such Magistrate. 9. Further, Section 211 I.P.C. states that if same are falsely institutes a criminal proceeding against another person with the intent to cause injury, knowing there is no just reason for it, they can be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or fine or both; and if the false charge is for a severe offence 5 punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for seven years or more, they can be punished with imprisonment upto seven years and fined. 10. The Court cannot launch a prosecution or file a complaint mechanically and it must record reasons showing application of judicial mind to the material on record to justify that the false charge was malicious and intentional. The necessary condition for applying Section 211 IPC is that the Court must form an opinion that a particular witness or witnesses are giving false evidence and at the time of delivering its Judgment record a finding that prima facie case is made out and that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made. Record reveals that having admitted his signatures on reports, the accused given explanation that as per the instructions of his uncle somebody written that reports and he doesn’t know the contents. Coming to the cross examination, except posing bald suggestion regarding the contents of statement given before the police, nothing useful material is elicited. Added to it, it is not even suggested that the accused having knowledge about the contents, deposed falsehood for the reasons best known to him. 11. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in Chajoo Ram vs. Radhey Shyam and Another1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case 1 (1971) 1 SCC 774 6 of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. In the present case we do not think the material brought to our notice was sufficiently adequate to justify the conclusion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint. The approach of the High Court seems somewhat mechanical and superficial: it does not reflect the requisite judicial deliberation...." And, the same principle is followed in Jai Bhagwan vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi)2. 12. Essential ingredient of offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. 13. The learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Amalapuram simply relied upon the admission of the signature of the accused on two reports and without properly considering the material, while acquitting the accused ordered for initiation of criminal prosecution. Further, not even recorded any finding that prima facie case is made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offence under Section 211 IPC. 14. No doubt giving false evidence is an offence but initiation of criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 211 without due care and caution and an inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court, without any doubt, came to conclusion that absolutely, there is no material to show prima facie case for initiation of criminal proceedings. 15. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed, conviction and sentence dated 05.01.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2012 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District are be 2 In Criminal Appeal No.2299 of 2009 decided on 30.10.2018 7 and hereby set aside, and that the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 211 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court is directed to return the fine amount of Rs.500/- to the accused in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt:27.07.2026 Vns