The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), by the petitioner/de facto complainant, aggrieved by the orders dated 19.10.2018 passed in CFR No.912 of 2018 in Crime No.54 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilakuntla, whereby and whereunder the protest petition filed by the petitioner/ de facto complainant raising objections against deletion of the names of A-5, A-7 and A-8 from the array of the accused in the charge sheet, was dismissed.

2. The Criminal Revision Petitioner is the de facto complainant, the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are accused/A-1 to A-8 and respondent No.1 is the State/complainant in PRC No.10 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilakuntla, concerned to Crime No.54 of 2017 of Koilakuntla Police Station.

3. The de facto complainant/ Revision Petitioner gave a report to the Sub Inspector of Police Koilakuntla alleging that there were disputes among him and his cousins in relation to a site situate in their village, which was partitioned by their elders, and there was a quarrel among them about an year prior to the incident and on account of the same the accused bore a grudge against the de facto complainant. It is further stated that on 24.05.2017 at 6.00 p.m., while the de facto complainant along with his brother Somula Nageswara Reddy (deceased) and Somula Rajasekhar Reddy was going to Grama Chavidi and when they reached infront of the house of Somula Narayana Reddy(A-1), the said Somula Narayana Reddy (A-1) and his son Vasudeva Reddy (A-2) armed with axes attacked the deceased Narayana Reddy and when they were hacking the deceased, Somula Lakshminarayana Reddy (A-5) came and caught hold of the legs of the deceased to prevent him from being escaped. In the meantime, Somula Rammohan Reddy (A-3) and his son Somula Surendra Reddy (A-4) came armed with sticks and beat the deceased on head and face and caused injuries. Then, A-6, Somula lakshmi Devi, wife of Rammohan Reddy, A-7 & A-8, Somula Lakshmi Sunitha and Somula Vaidehi, daughters of the said Rammohan Reddy, came and beat the deceased with hands and legs shouting to kill the deceased. When the de facto complainant and Somula Rajasekhara Reddy tried to rescue the deceased, A-6 to A-8 beat them with hands and legs. When some villagers came there, the accused went to the house of Lakshminarayana Reddy and thereafter they escaped in the tractor of the said Lakshminarayana Reddy. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool and the doctors declared him brought dead. The report of the de facto complainant was registered as a case in Crime No. 54 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 the Indian Penal Code.

4. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Koilakuntla Circle filed charge sheet by deleting A-5, A-7 and A-8 from the array of the accused stating that the investigation revealed that they did not participate in commission of offence along with other coaccused.

5. Aggrieved by the said deletion of A-5, A-7 and A-8, the de facto complainant/ Revision Petitioner filed protest petition in CFR No.912 of 2018 before the Court below and the said protest petition was dismissed. Assailing the said dismissal, the de facto complainant preferred the instant Criminal Revision Case.

6. It is relevant here to note that, earlier, this Criminal Revision Case was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court vide orders dated 09.09.2021. Assailing the orders passed by this Court, the accused/ A-7 and A-8 preferred Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3087 of 2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, having observed that the order impugned appears to have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein, set aside the orders impugned and remitted the matter to this Court for fresh adjudication.

7. Heard Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel, for S