The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Sadbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumarl wherein the law under Section

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned summons issued to the Petitioner by the Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan [\rlagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar in STC.No.47 of 2021 under Section 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. '1973 l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioners in STC No.47 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan l\4agistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A SATYASIRI, Advocate for the Petitioners and on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA D]:\/I EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10479 OF 2t,25 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed to set asrde the impugned summons issued to the petitioner by the junior civil ,lr.rdge -cum-Xlv Addl.lVletropolrtan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy Distric: r'for short "trial Courl") in STC NO 47 of 2021 UNDER SEcTtoN 6't of the Criminal procedure code,1973

2. Heard the submissions of A.Satyasiri , learned r;ounsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla , the le rlned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 State

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the STC No 47 of 2021 is pending under Sections 290, 504 an,j 506 of lndian Penal Code and that the petitroners herein a-er facing false allegations. He further submitted that initially the cha"c,e sheet is filed against only two of the accused i.e., one Paramestrwar Reddy and Venkata Rami Reddy, but that during the pendencT of the case, a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.9BB of 2024 was filed unrje;r Section 319 Cr P C by the APP, wherein he has proposed tc add two more accused. After hearing both the parties, the petition v,,as allowed by t I 2 the trial Court and the proposed-accused Nos.3 and 4 were added as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the pencling STC. The petitioners herein are the newly added accused Nos.3 and 4, they are none other than the wife and son of Venkata Rami Reddy, who is arrayed as accused iio.2 in STC.N.47 ol 2021 . The learned counsel has submitted that they are no v/ay concerned with the alleged offences and that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is clearly explained by the Apex Court time and again and that there should be prima-facie case to add the accused and that there is nothing against these petitroners in the cornplaint. Hence, the trial Court was wrong in adding thenr in the present case. He fu(her submitted that notice to parties is also an essential element, which was forgotten by the trial Court, and the reasons to add the accused is also not discussed by the trial Court He therefore. prayed to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M P No.9BB of 2024 dated 24.06.2024. 4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Sadbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumarl , wherein the law under Section 31g is clearly explained by discussing the constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab2. He further argued that cognizance can be taken against a person when prima-facie material 2025 Liv{ Law (SC) 375 ArR 2014 qcc 1400 \I -t exists under Section 3'1 9 Cr.P.C. He therefore, praye d to dismiss the petition

5. Perusecl ihe record

6. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by tre Orders in Crl M.P No.9BB of 2024 dated 24.06.2024, by wri:h they were added as accused in the STC.No 47 of 2021

7. The Section 319 Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference.- Section 319:- Power to proceed against otl'e' persons appeanng to be guilty of offence.- (1) When:, in the course of any inquiry into, or l,'ial of , an offence, it appears from the evidence that any pers:l.. not being the accused has committed any offence for which ;t,ch person could be lried together with the accused, the t.)ourt may proceed 6,gainst such person for the offence vrhich lte appears to have contmitted. (2) Where such person is not attending the Courl irc ntay be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of tt e case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any pc.rson attending the Courl, although not undt>r arrest or upon a -eu/nmors, may be detained by such Cc, ut for the purpose L>f the inquiry into, or trial of, the offent:e which he appeats lo have committed. (4) Whero the Court proceeds against any persor lnder sub- section (1) then- (a) The proceedings in respect of such persor shall be commenced afresh, and the wltnesses re-heard; I i I 4 (b) Subject to the provisions of c/ause (a), the case may proceed as if such persort had been an accused person when the Couri took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial utas commenced. B. A plain reading of the section clearly reveals that, if there is a prima-facie material, the l\4agistrate is empowered to add the said prcposed persons to be the accused. in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the trial Court has added the accused on perusing the record, holding that there is a prima-facie case by allowing the petition flled under Section 3'19 Cr.P C, the said orders were set aside by the High Court, but when the matter reached the Apex Court, the Apex Court has held that High Court has failed to conslder the matter in proper perspective and that the conclusion of the Sessions Judge was a plausible conclusion and has set aside the orders of the H;gh Court and confirmed the orders passed by the Sessions Judge. The Apex Court has reiterated the said principle in Sadbir Singh's case (supra).

9. ln the present case, the Magistrate has recorded the reasons for allowing the petiticn !t is borne out by record that the complaint was lodged against Venkat Ranga Reddy, Anitha, pandu Ranga Reddy and Venkata Rami Reddy, but the police filed charge sheet onlV againslVenkata Rami Reddy and paramesh who were arrayed , i|.-a zE;. =#--s Ii : i ; i l as accused Nos.'1 and 2. lt is further observt-.:i that pWl has deposed before the Court that accused Nos. l,2 arrrj the proposed accused Nos.3 and 4 used to come and threaten ilrem. Thus, the trial Court has held that there is prima-facie : l,e against the proposed accused and hence, has allowed the petiti tr r. 10 ln view of the above held discussion and in I g tt of the above said decision, the orders passed by the tnal Court C: not suffer from any infirmity and are based on sound reasoning. Hen.;e, it is not just and proper to interfere ivrth the said orders, the petitrtl lacks merits 11 . ln the result, the Criminal Petition is dismisserl Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, sh;rl stand closed SD/-'-. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS;IIiTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \.i SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civrl Judge-cum-XlV Additional Metropolitan N/lagistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar 2 The Station House Officer. Hayath Nagar Police Statior', layath Nagar, Rachakonda District

3. One CC to SRI A SATYASIRI Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State o'Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 5 Two CD Copies VIV/GR Pt-' =*...- --.-.-d HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 I ORDER CRLP.No.10479 of 2025 lE S14 14: 14,, 6 ,5 N0lJ 2U[ ,/| /; ,) {.) ,.) i ?tso n..-P(O DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION s ,..f,.A Yt-r^t