The main legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court in altering or adding charges and committing the case to the Court of Session, as well as the limitations on the power of the Magistrate in making such alterations.

ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case came to be filed, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, “the Cr.P.C”) by the petitioner herein, who was the de-facto complainant (PW.1) in C.C. No.79 of 2009, challenging the order, dated 13.10.2006, in Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2016 in C.C. No.79 of 2009, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout (for short, “the trial Court”), whereunder the learned Magistrate dismissed the Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2016, which was filed under Sections 216 and 323 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to add Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and commit the case to the Court of Sessions.

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts, which are borne out by the record and which can be extracted here, for the purpose of this Criminal Revision Case can be summarized as follows:

Originally, the de-facto complainant gave a statement which was marked before the trial Court under Ex.P-1 to the concerned SHO, which came to be registered as FIR under Sections 147, 148 and 326 R/w.149 IPC. The Vontimitta Police, Kadapa District after investigation filed charge sheet under Sections 147, 148 and 326 R/w.149 IPC. The allegations in Ex.P-1 were that accused attacked the de-facto complainant with an intention to kill him. The Police registered the FIR and laid charge sheet, ultimately, on the above provisions of law. After that, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and after completing the formalities framed charges under Sections 147, 148 and 326 R/w.149 IPC. During course of trial, the de-facto complainant was examined as PW.1 and during the evidence in chief-examination he stated that on 23.04.2009 at 10:30 PM, while he was present at Sri Rama temple in Bandarupalli, all the accused came there armed with iron rods, sickles, axes and sticks with an intention to kill him. A-2 tried to beat him with iron rod on his head but he put his left hand to resist that blow as such he received injuries to his left hand and little finger. A-1, A-3 to A-11 beat him on his overall body and caused injuries. Against that background, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a Petition in Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2016 in C.C. No.79 of 2009, for which the accused i.e., A-1 to A-3 filed counter and on hearing both sides the learned Magistrate dismissed the Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant came up with the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the order in Crl.M.P. No.225 of 2016 in C.C. No.79 of 2009, dated 13.10.2016, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said order?

5. Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the Police did not register the FIR under Section 307 IPC though in Ex.P-1 it was alleged that the accused attacked the de-facto complainant with an intention to kill him and even after completion of investigation, Police did not include Section 307 IPC by laying the charge sheet and even the learned Magistrate, at the time of framing of charges, did not look into the allegation under Section 307 IPC as such PW.1 was compelled to depose the facts which were happened really and thereupon the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the application under Sections 216 and 323 Cr.P.C, which came to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate erroneously. Learned counsel would further contend that the Magistrate had absolute power either under Section 216 Cr.P.C. or under Section 323 Cr.P.C. to include Section 307 IPC and commit the case to the Court of Session but the learned Magistrate failed to do so as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, he would rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy v. Th