Questioning the order dated 11.11.2013 passed in P.R.C. No.15 of 2013, on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District, wherein the petitioners who were added as A-2 to A-7, the present application under Section 482 CrPC is filed seeking quashing of the same.

2. The facts in issue are as under :

Originally a case in Crime No.27 of 2013 of Rajupalem police station, YSR Kadapa District was registered against A-1 to A-7 for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The police investigated into the matter and filed charge-sheet only against A-1, while deleting the names of A-2 to A-7 from the array of accused. The said charge-sheet was filed on 26.06.2013. While taking cognizance of the matter, the learned Magistrate took the case on file against all the seven accused and issued N.B.Ws. against A-2 to A-7. Challenging the order taking cognizance of the case against the petitioners/A-2 to A-7, the present petition is filed.

3. Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Kishori Singh and others v. State of Bihar and another (2001 Crl.L.J. 123), the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate could not have issued process against those persons, who have been shown as accused in the FIR but deleted from the array of accused in the charge-sheet filed by the police under Section 173 CrPC.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application contending that Section 190 CrPC gives ample power to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the matter even against persons, who are not charge-sheeted by the police. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme court in Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir and others ((2001)8 SCC 522) and State of Orissa v. Habibullah Khan ((2003) 12 SCC 129), the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 11.11.2013.

5. Before proceeding further, it may be relevant to refer to Section 190 CrPC, which reads as under :

190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate :-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specifically empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence:

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such facts;

(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.

6. In Kishori Singh v. State of Bihar (2001 Crl.L.J. 123) the Apex Court held as under :

“10. So far as those persons against whom charge-sheet has not been filed, they can be arrayed as “accused persons” in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.PC 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 High Court, on examining the materials, 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 decision. Neither of the contingencies has arisen in the case in hand.”

7. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998(2) ALD(Crl.) 649 SC), a three-Judge bench of the Apex Court dealt with the issue as to whether a Sessions Court can add a new person to the array of the accused in a case pending before it at a stage prior to collecting any evidence. The Apex Court in Ranjit Singh case was dealing with the difference of opinion expressed by a two-Judge bench in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar ((1996)4 SCC 495), wherein