High Court · 2025

represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. RESPONDENT

2. Musti Sujatha, Wo. Late Anjaneyulu, Age.27 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Paspula Village, Marikal Mandal, Narayanpet District. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAI NANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 144 of 2024 in P.R.C. No 43 ot 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narayanpet, dated 16-05-2024. I.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 144 of 2024 in P.R.C. No. 43 of 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narayanpet, dated 16-05-2024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr K Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 , and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CR]MINAL PETITION No. 8026 oF 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS' 2023') seeking quashment of the proceedings in Crl'M'P'No'144 of 2024 in P.R.C.No.43 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Narayanpet against the petitioner' 2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No'7 in P'R C'No 43 of 2022.

3. Heard Mr.K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla' learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No'1-State' 4. The respondent No.2/de facto complainant has filed protest petition before the Magistrate with a prayer to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 146' 147' 148' 302 rlw 149 of IPC against the Petitioner' 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigating agency had filed charge sheet deleting the name of the petitioner. Thereafter learned Magistrate by recording sworn statement had passbd the impugned order whereby cognizance =---G-"=.,+ ..*&.:**u;&',;A:.'*; -, I I j I I i I I 2 NTR,J cRLP_8026_2024 has been taken against the petitioner beyond its jurisdiction. He further pleaded that in the offences triable by Sessions Judge where the accused are not charge sheeted, only upon considering the evidence in trial, the Sessions Court may take array of accused under Section 319 of CriC but not by the Magistrate. On this aspect he cited the authority of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kishoi Singh v. State of Bihar _ 2006(1) SCC (Cn) 275. Thus prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 6. Learned Additional public prosecutor would fairly submit that in the petitioner referred authority a simirar situation has been considered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Kishori Singh (supra) and the cognizance order passed by the Magistrate I have perused the materials on record. therein was set aside. 7. 8. The facts that the petitioner was shown as accused in the crime but after investigation the police did not choose to charge sheet the petitioner. Upon the protest petition of the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the impugned order has been passed whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 146, 147,148,302 RA/V 149 lpC and arrayed the petitioner as accused No.7. , :;m w 3 NTR,J cRLP_8026-2024

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authori$ of Kshoi Singh (supra) has considered a situation where the magistrate had taken cognizance on protest petition under Section 302 r/w 34,324 and 448 of IPC and Section 27 of the lndian Arms Act and by reiterating the decisions in Rai Kishore Prasad v State of Bihar - (1996) 4 SCC 4g5 and Raniit Singh v Stafe of Puniab - (1ggil) 7 SCC 14g observed in paras 9 and '10 observed as follows: "9. After going through the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the aforesaid tlvo ludgments and on examining the order dated 10-6-'1997 passed by the telagistrate' we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Magistrate could not have issued process against those persons who may have been named ln the F l R as accused persons, but not charge sheeted ln the charge sheet that was filed by the police under Section 173 of Cr'P C

10. So far as those persons agatnst whom chargesheet has not been filed, they can be arrayed as "accused persons" ln exercise of powers under Section 319, Cr.P C when some evidence or materials are brought on record in course of trial or they could also be arrayed as "accused persons" only when a reference is made either by the Magistrate while passing an order of commitment or by the learned Sessions Judge to the High Court and the Hlgh Court' on examlning the material, comes to the conclusion that sufficient materials exist against them even though the police might not have filed charge sheet' as has been explained in the latter three-Judge Bench "

10. ln the light of above dictum' as the facts and circumstances of the instant matter are meeting in all fours' it I I I l I I -*-=rq!E-cL; .*!alii 4 NTR,J cRLP_8026_2024 ,,) shall be held that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

11. ln the result, the criminal petition is a[owed. The proceedings in Crt.M.p.No. 144 of 2024 in p.RC.No.4 3 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet against the petitioner are hereby quashed. Nonetheress this order will not preclude the Sessions Court concerned in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 319 of Code of Criminal procedure at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION-OFFICER

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Narayanpet. 2. The Station House officer, Marikar porice station, Narayanpet District. 3. One CC to Mr. K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CD Copies Swt/ d I ;t --" j :-BX*ftI I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2410412025 ORDER CRLP.No.8026 of 2024 .$ 1:r >)i ,'.\ /i ;: ii- lt -. I 'i .f:1.. \\' q.J CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED 01