This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.8 of 2015 pending before IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyberabad. The committal proceedings under Section 209 Cr.P.C. are pending at the post cognizance stage of Section 190 Cr.P.C., based on the police final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which is the outcome of crime No.14 of 2015 on the report of the LW.1-father of victim (LW3) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 506 and 343 I.P.C., the police filed final report, however, the Magistrate taken cognizance undisputedly for the offence punishable under Sections 364A, 506 and 343 I.P.C.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor (Telangana) for the State before notice to the 2nd respondent and before admission. Perused the material on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner drawn attention of the Court to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of LW.3-Victim, who is a major undisputedly as if she voluntarily left with the accused and they lived together in a private premises concealing their identity and the police brought her back. The same appears reiterated in her another written statement to the police, which does not have any sanctity more than value to be attached to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement from the original report of the cognizable offence already registered as F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 2637).

Even the two statements of her are in favour of the accused to say as if they voluntarily left and there is no offence, the subsequent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of said victim before learned Magistrate gives a different version about the complicity of the accused and it is from that material as part of the investigation material, the final report filed by the police and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 364A, 506 and 343 I.P.C.

It is at that stage no doubt the petitioner/accused moved the learned Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending arrest after police issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice having came to the conclusion of not to arrest otherwise, however, in his saying same not complied with the requirements of Section 41 read with 41-A(4) Cr.P.C. No doubt, it requires the permission of Magistrate for non-appearance to Section 41-A notice to arrest, once reasons assigned not to arrest. The learned Sessions Judge as it appears dismissed the anticipatory bail application stating the investigation material shows the offence punishable under Sections 363, 506 and 343 I.P.C. which are bailable offences triable by the Magistrate and there is no any non-bailable offence. In fact the Magistrate has taken cognizance as referred supra under Section 364-A I.P.C. which offence is non-bailable and the case is there from triable by the Court of Sessions, that what it appears as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate to allot P.R.C.No.8 of 2015, to commit the case to Court of Sessions.

Once such is the case, as per the mandate of Section 209(b) Cr.P.C. subject to bail as per the provisions of the Act if any accused has to be taken into custody and be committed to the Court of Sessions, that while committing remand the accused until such period either till the end of trial or sooner to it as the case may be, as one of the four requirements covered Section 209(a) to (d) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to follow once while taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. the offence, where it appears the case triable by Court of Sessions, so to commit, for the learned Sessions Judge in turn to take cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. Once that provision uses shall in Section 209 Cr.P.C. said compliance is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate though in other respects the committal proceedings are almost a post office duty.

The learned Sessions Judge no doubt dismissed the anticipatory ba