Magistrate is not a Post Office = Magistrate, who is dealing with a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. has to apply his mind to find out as to whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case or not. Only, in the event, a prima facie case is made out, the complaint can be forwarded to the police for making investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the Code. Reasons are required to be spelt out for that satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate. Perhaps, those reasons need not be very elaborate. Mechanically, no Magistrate can forward the complaints received to the police for investigation. Such measures would result in reducing the Court to that of a mere post office or to that of a sorting office attached to the Railway Mail Service. That is not the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the Code where provision is made for a genuine complainant to approach the competent Court for securing redressal for his grievance, when the police failed to act in the matter. I am, therefore, convinced that the entire exercise is an illegal one and hence, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.-2015 Telangana & A.P.msklawreports

Magistrate is not a Post Office = Magistrate, who is dealing with a complaint under Section 190 read with 200 Cr.P.C. has to apply his mind to find out as to whether the complaint makes out a prima facie case or not.  Only, in the event, a prima facie case is made out, the complaint can be forwarded to the police for making investigation and to file a final report under Section 173 of the Code. Reasons are required to be spelt out for that satisfaction arrived at by the Magistrate.  Perhaps, those reasons need not be very elaborate. Mechanically, no Magistrate can forward the complaints received to the police for investigation.  Such measures would result in reducing the Court to that of a mere post office or to that of a sorting office attached to the Railway Mail Service.  That is not the purpose which is sought to be achieved by the Code where provision is made for a genuine complainant to approach the competent Court for securing redressal for his grievance, when the police failed to act in the matter.       I am, therefore, convinced that the entire exercise is an illegal one and hence, this petition is allowed.       Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed.-2015 Telangana & A.P.msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS