A Magistrate must judiciously consider the material on record and form an opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made out before taking cognizance of an offence. A person ought not to be dragged into court merely because a complaint has been filed.

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, who is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.421 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.09.2018 taking cognizance of the case against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 435 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2 whereas the respondent No.2 herein is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.421 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur.

3. The 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant presented a report dated 24.06.2017 to the Station House officer, Markapur town Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.108 of 2017 of Markapur Town Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Sections 435 and 109 IPC against A-1 and the petitioner/A2. The respondent police investigated into the case and filed charge sheet on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur, deleting A-1 and the petitioner/A-2 from the array of the accused as their involvement in this case is not proved and added one Podatarapu Anji as accused. Pursuantly, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the de facto complainant /2nd respondent herein calling for objections for deletion of the names of the accused/A-1 and A-2 and in response thereof the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 filed memo dated 04.07.2018 seeking time to file objections. Therefore, the learned Magistrate vide orders dated 10.09.2018 took cognizance of the case against the accused A-1 and A-2 also and registered the case as C.C. and ordered for issuance of summons to A1 to A3.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/A-2 preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

5. The contentions raised in the Criminal Revision Case, in brief, are that, the petitioner/A-2 is innocent and she did not commit any offence and the police, after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet stating that it came to light during the course of investigation that the offence was committed by one Podatarapu Anji and hence he was shown as accused by deleting the A-1 and the petitioner/A-2 from the array of the accused on the ground that their involvement in this case is not proved. The First Information Report and 161 CrPC statements of the witnesses do not show the involvement of the petitioner/A-2 in the alleged crime and the same was also substantiated by the investigation done by the investigating officer. Thus, the order of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable, as the same is contrary to the material placed before him. Hence, prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Case by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/2nd accused, Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. The 2nd respondent though entered appearance through an Advocate, he was not represented throughout the proceedings.

7. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in elaboration, would submit that 161 CrPC statements recorded by the Investigating Officer do not show either the presence or involvement of the petitioner/A-2 in this crime. He would further submit that during the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused/A1 and A2 did not commit the offence and one Podatarapu Anji had committed the offence and pursuantly, the investigating officer filed charge sheet deleting the accused/A-1 and A-2 and had shown the said Podatarapu Anji as the sole accused that had committed the offence. He would further submit that, pursuant to the notice issued by the Court below, the de facto complainant/ 2nd respondent did not file any objections raising valid grounds, except f