RAJMOHAN Vs. SEETHA VEDHANAYAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition before this Court seeking 'Grant of Leave' to prefer an Appeal against the Judgment in C.C.No.98 of 2013 dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet.

(3.) The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.98 of 2013, on 010.2016, at paragraph 36(6), had, among other things, observed that '... between the Complainant (Appellant) and the Accused (Respondents) in the Civil Suit relating to the ownership of property as to whom it belong, the Judgment is not yet delivered; the Complainant only after establishing his right in the aforesaid Suit (O.S.No.170 of 2013) should have filed the Complaint'. Further, it was to be opined that the complaint was filed in a routine fashion and that too prematurely and ultimately, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant had not established his charge against the Respondents/Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and found the Respondents 1 to 6/A1 to A6 not guilty and acquitted them under Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C.