ORDER:

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the Order dated 29.06.2017 passed in Cr.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Station House Officer, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam District, the cognizance of which was taken in C.C.No.99 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Amudalavalasa, Srikakulam District.

2. The petitioners herein are Accused Nos.2, 3, 7, 13, 14 & 15 in the above said crime.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. Personal notice taken out on the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. Hence, the notice is deemed to have been served on the 2nd respondent and none entered appearance on behalf of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant.

4. Pursuant to a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, the police registered a F.I.R on 19.02.2017 against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). After conducting investigation, police filed a Charge Sheet on 19.05.2017 against Accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 & 8 and 10 to 12 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, that Accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 8 to 12 have criminally intimidated L.Ws 1 & 2 with a common intention and as such liable for punishment under Section 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The police have also charge sheeted Accused No.12 for the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. The police have deleted the names of A.2, A.3, A.7, A.13, A.14 & A.15 as their participation is not established. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant filed Memo of Objections to the report of the police in filing a Charge Sheet without including the petitioners herein as accused stating inter alia that the police ought to have filed Charge Sheet against them for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Considering the said objections, the learned Magistrate passed an Order dated 29.06.2017 taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners/A.2, A.3, A.7 and A.13 to A.15. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition came to be filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the order of the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance for the alleged offences against the petitioners herein is not sustainable in Law. He submits that the concerned police officials after conducting investigation and examining the witnesses found that the petitioners herein did not participate in the alleged offences and filed Charge Sheet against Accused Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 & 8 to 12. He submits that the Investigating Officer has given cogent reasons for not filing Charge Sheet against the petitioners and in such circumstances the Learned Magistrate is not justified in taking cognizance for the offences against the petitioners. He further submits that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed „Memo of Objections? instead of filing a „protest petition? against deletion of the petitioners while filing Charge Sheet and the same is not maintainable. In elaboration, he submits that the protest petition shall be in the form of a complaint giving all necessary particulars of the offence including the witnesses to prove the same, which may show prima facie case against the petitioners. He further submits that the Learned Magistrate, however entertained the Memo of Objections and recorded the statement of de facto complainant only in respect of the present petitioners, but not against all the accused and taken cognizance of the offences, which is legally not sustainable. The learned counsel also submits that the matter is covered by a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Veerappa and others vs. Bhimareddappa, [ILR 2002 KAR 1665]. Making the said submissions, the learn