The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana,, represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad. ...AppellanUAccused - 4 & 5 ... Res po n de n UC o m p la inant lA NO: 1 OF 2025: Petition under Section 438 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 15 04 2025 rn PRC No 14 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial ftIagistrate of First Class, Thorrur, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE R.ENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.43L OF 2025 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the revlsron petitioners/ accused Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the impugned docket order of the learned Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thormr, in PRC No.14 ot 2025, dated 15.04.2025, which is as follows: "Complainant present and objected for deletion of names of accused No.4 and 5. Heard ald perused the record. Prima facic case found against A1 to A5. Htrnce, this court has taken cognizance against A1 to A5 lor the olfencc punishable U/s.3O7 IPC r/w 34 of IPC. Issue summons <rn A1 to A5. Call on 24.OI.2025."

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in the grounds of revision urged that the learned Magistrate failed to follou' the procedure under Criminal Procedure Code i.e ln cases u,here the name of the accused ought to be deleted from tire array of accused in the charge sheet for lailure to establish the ollences against the accused, a protest petition 2 has to be frled raising objection as to deletion of some accused or filing a Nil charge sheet by the police. Upon filing of such protest petition, the learned Magistrate has to record the statements of de-facto complainant and other witnesses, either by issuing summons or not, as contemplated under Section 2O4 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that the de-facto complainant is not an eye witness to the occurrence of the incident and therefore, his version cannot be taken into consideration to establish an offence against the revision petitioners. Since there is failure to file protest petition and since there is failure to record the statements of the concerned under Section 2O4 of Cr.P.C., it is prayed that the impugned docket order dated l5-O4-2O25 be set aside.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that in general procedure, the de-facto complainant has to file a protest petition opposing the deletion of names from the array of accused and such a procedure has not been follor,r'ed b,1 the Iearned Magistrate and to that extent, there is lapse procedure. J

5. The brief facts of the case are that one Mohammed Shahanaj Begum gave a report dated 09.05.2024 statrng that on said day, in the evening, her husband by name Mahankali Saimallu and others were campaigning for Kadiyam Kavya who was contesting as Member of Parliament. At that time, the revision petitioners and. three others have beaten her husband with sticks causing bleeding injuries to him. The police on the basis of said report have registered a case in Crime No.l42 of 2024 under Section 3O7 r /w 34 of IPC on the file of Police Station, Thormr against the revision petitioners and three others. Further, the police completed investigation and hled charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and deleted the names of rcvision petitioners from the array of accused as there r,r,as no offence against them.

6. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate ordered notice to the de-facto complainant and posted the matter on 15.O4.2025. On said date, the de-facto complainant appeared before the court and opposed deletion of names of revision petitiorrers from the array of accused. [n vieu, of opposition from the de-facto complainant, the Iearned Magistrate perused the record and took cognizance o[ offence under Section 3O7 rlw 34 of IPC against all the accused 4 including the revision petitioners. The learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 2O4 of Cr.P.C i.e. frling of tl-e protest petition and examination of witnesses. Hence, the present revision case is filed.

7. The arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are to that effect that there is failure in observing the procedure under Sections 2OO and 2O4 of Cr.P.C i.e. hling a protest petition by the de-facto complainant and examination of witnesses before deleting the narnes or taking cognizance against the revision petitioners. When the presence of de-facto complainant is recorded and when her opposition is recorded by the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate ought to have directed the de-facto complainant to file a protest petition to be followed by recording of statements of witnesses. Since, the learned Magistrate failed to record reasons for taking cognizance against the revision petitioners rryhose names were deleted in the charge sheet and there is failure on the part of the learned Magistrate in following the procedure contemplated under Sections 200 and 2O4 of Cr. P.C., the irnpugned docket order of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur, in PRC ,-l 5 No.14 of 2025, dated 15.04.2025, to the extent of taking cognizance against the revision petitioners/ accused Nos.4 ald 5, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for consideration afresh in accordance with Sections 200 and 2O4 of Cr.P.C and pass appropriate order.

8. With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY 1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR t. { SECTION OFFICER ----------- t' To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge curn Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur. 2. One CC to Sri A Prabhakar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the state of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD Co pres Svs/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1 510712025 ORDER CRLRC.No.431 ot 2025 2 0 rlJE 205 ./, t S'I,,r, | - DISPOSING OF THE CRLRC Cb