ORDER :

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.177 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur for offences under Sections 307 & 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The background of the case is as follows:

The de facto complainant had filed a complaint before the Pedakakani Police Station of Guntur Urban in Crime No.234 of 2012 against the petitioners herein for an offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint of the de facto complainant was that there were certain disputes relating to a property between the de facto complainant and others during which the petitioners herein are said to have sought to evict the de facto complainant and his wife from the disputed property which was in the possession of the de facto complainant. The further complaint was that after attempting to intimidate the de facto complainant into vacating the house, an attack was carried out on the life of the de facto complainant by the petitioners who had assaulted the de facto complainant by stabbing him with a knife.

3. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer had filed a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C stating that no incident has taken place and that, it was at best a case of self injury caused by the de facto complainant.

4. The Magistrate after considering the final report, recording the sworn statement of the Complainant and after hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the de facto complainant had come to the conclusion that the final report was not acceptable and correct.

5. The Magistrate, in his order dated 01.10.2016 recorded that a surgery was conducted on the de facto complainant and a statement of the de facto complainant had been recorded by the Station House Officer, Outpost, Government General Hospital, Guntur District where the de facto complainant was being treated. The magistrate took the view that these facts would show that the de facto complainant had sustained grievous injuries and that the statement of the de facto complainant and his wife, which was recorded by a Magistrate, under section 164 of Cr.P.C., made out a prima facie case that petitioners 1 and 2 had stabbed the de facto complainant with the assistance of petitioners 3 and 4 in order to kill him.

6. The Magistrate after recording further facts had taken the view that there is a prima facie case in respect of the act committed by the petitioners with an intention to kill the de facto complainant. The Magistrate had directed that the case be taken on file under Sections 307 and 327 read with Section 34 of I.P.C against the petitioners and the case be numbered as PRC.No.31 of 2016. Thereafter, the Magistrate by an order dated 04.02.2017 had committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 (c) of Cr.P.C upon which the case was numbered as S.C.No.177 of 2017. The petitioners moved Crl.M.P. No. 52 of 2017, under section 227 of Cr.P.C., for discharging the petitioners on the ground that, the magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint by recording the sworn statement of the complainant, without the complainant filing a complaint and proceeding under section 200 of Cr.P.C. This petition was dismissed by the trial judge on 12.12.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners moved this court, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., by way of Crl.P.No. 1617 of 2019. This petition was withdrawn by the petitioners on 22.09.2022, without seeking leave and the present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court in S.C. No. 177 of 2017.

7. Sri D.S.N.V.Prasad Babu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Md.Saleem Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the procedure under taken by the Magistrate is clearly in violation of Section 173 (8) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. He submits that once a final report is filed by the police under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, the de facto complainant would hav