MANDA KRUPAKAR RAO Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the complainant questioning the order dated 06.02.2006 passed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 63 of 2004 confirming order dated 15.03.2004 passed by the V. Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur in C.F.R. No. 9039 of 2003 by which the Magistrate refused to take the complainant on file and dismissed the same under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after making due enquiry.

(2.) The petitioner gave report to Arundelpet Police of Guntur alleging that on 28.07.2003 at about 8.30 P.M A-1 and A-2 who are father and son called him as 'Madiga Nakodaka' and proclaimed to kill him and that A-1 caught hold of his shirt and that when he questioned A-1 about his high handed activity, A-2 abused him in the name of his caste in vulgar language and beat him with hand on his back. The police after investigation filed final report before the Magistrate referring the case as false. Thereupon, the petitioner filed private complaint in the lower Court. Admittedly there are civil disputes between the parties with regard to money transactions and those disputes are stated to be pending in courts. During enquiry before the Magistrate, the complainant and one witness on his behalf were examined.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner's counsel that the complainant in his sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate corroborated allegations in the complaint and that there fore, the Magistrate should have taken the case on file and should have issued summonses to the respondents 2 and 3. Placing reliance on Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose, 1963 AIR(SC) 1430 it is contended by the petitioner's counsel that object of enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. is to ascertain truth or falsity of the complaint. The Supreme Court observed therein: