K VIJAYA LAXMI Vs. K LAXMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 17-6-99 passed by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in S.R. No. 4956/1998 in C.C. No. 429/1998 and also order dated 31-12-1999 passed by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl. R.P. No. 148/1999, upholding the above order dated 17-6-1999. By the impugned orders, the petition filed on behalf of the de facto complainant for permitting her advocate to conduct the prosecution on her behalf, on the ground that the A.P.P.O. was conducting the prosecution in an improper way, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant to the case may be briefly mentioned as follows :-

(3.) The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order holding that the Court took cognizance of the offence on the basis of the charge sheet filed by the Station House Officer, P.S. Saidabad and not on the basis of the complaint made by the de facto complainant Smt. Vijaya Laxmi. It is further held that it is the State, which is the complainant in the case and in view of the provisions of S. 25 of Cr. P.C., it is only the prosecuting officers appointed by the Government who are competent to represent the State and conduct the prosecution. Thus, the request of the de facto complainant was rejected. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, before whom this order was challenged in Cr. R.P. No. 148/1999 upheld this order. It was urged before the Sessions Judge that the complaint filed by the de facto complainant must be deemed to have been taken cognizance on the basis of the complaint made by her and not on the basis of the police report and in that view of the matter, the de facto complainant must have the liberty to have the case conducted through her advocate. The learned Sessions Judge rejected these contentions and held that the Mahila Court, which took cognizance of the case, has not examined the de facto complainant and the witnesses, if any, under S. 202, Cr. P.C. that the Court did not proceed under Chapter 16 of the Cr. P.C. and straightaway ordered investigation by the Police under S. 156(3), Cr. P.C. and under these circumstances, the learned Sesssions Judge held that the complaint was not taken cognizance on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant and that the learned Magistrate rightly took note of the police report and issued summons to the accused. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition.