V V SATYANARAYANA RAJU Vs. P LAXMIKANTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 432 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No. 39 of 1991 on the file of the-II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bheemavaram which was taken cognizance on the basis of a private complaint.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition under Section 432 Cr.P.C. have to be mentioned in brief so as to understand the real contraversy in the case. The incident in this case took place at 3 P.M. on 7-2-1991. A lady, who was attracted to the spot by the cries of the complainant, took the complainant to the hospital and her statement was recorded at 1.15 A.M. on 3.2.1991. A case was registered on 7.2.1991. The police claims that it has investigated the case and found that the case is false and filed a referred notice on 4.3.1991. On 11.4.1991, the complainant filed a private complaint in the court. On 24.4.1991,the complainant received the referred notice and on 29.4.1991, she file a petition in the court mentioning as to when she received the notice and the fact that she had already filed a private complaint on 11-4-1991. Subsequently on 14-6-1991, the complainant's sworn statement was recorded. Ultimately the referred notice was accepted on 19.7.1991 i.e. long after the filing of the private complaint and one month, five days after the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded.

(3.) Now the petitioners' advocate contends relying upon two decisions of this court reported in P.V. Krishna Prasad vs. K.V.N. Koteswara Rao (1) 1990 (3) A.L.T. 202 and T.V. Ramadas vs. State of A.P. (2) 1990 (3) A.L.T. 353 that the P.R.C. which was taken cognizance on the basis of a private complaint is not maintainable and the court having accepted the referred notice and having passed a judicial order, has no right to review it or re-open it and then take cognizance of the case on the basis of a private complaint.