The court emphasized that the absence of cogent reasoning in rejecting a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. constitutes a procedural irregularity, warranting remand for fresh consideration.

ORDER:

Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) feeling aggrieved by the order of declining to discharge the Petitioner/Accused No.2, vide order dated 11.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2025 in S.C.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 120-B, 323, 341 and 302 read with 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ‘the I.P.C.,’).

2. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the impugned order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate is patently illegal, improper, and contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a manifest error in declining to consider the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ solely on the ground that the petitioner had previously invoked the revisional jurisdiction challenging the cognizance order passed by the learned Additional Judicial First-Class Magistrate under Section 190 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ which was dismissed. The rejection of the earlier revision does not preclude the petitioner from seeking discharge under Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ as both proceedings are governed by distinct legal parameters. It is well settled that the scope of consideration under Section 190 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the learned Judicial First- Class Magistrate (committal court), which acts upon the police report under Section 173 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is materially different from the judicial scrutiny required under Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ by the learned Trial Court. While the committal court merely examines whether the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, the Sessions Court, under Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is obligated to evaluate the entire material accompanying the charge sheet and, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the accused, determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed to trial. If no such grounds are found, the accused must be discharged.

3. It is further argued that the learned Sessions Judge failed to assign cogent reasons for rejecting the discharge petition, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The absence of such reasoning renders the order unsustainable in law. Further, the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the offence is not supported by any credible material. The initial witnesses expressed uncertainty regarding the petitioner’s presence at the scene, while others categorically denied his involvement. In light of these contradictions, the investigating agency rightly omitted the petitioner’s name from the final charge sheet.

4. Learned Senior Counsel furthermore argued that the petitioner, being a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), was stationed far from the locus delicti and falsely implicated due to intra-family disputes among the complainant’s relatives. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have taken judicial notice of this context. Moreover, the statements of LW.6, LW.7, and LW.13, who were examined as eyewitnesses, do not contain any identification of the petitioner. Even the confessional statements of the co-accused are silent with respect to the petitioner’s alleged role, thereby negating any inference of complicity.

5. In view of the above, the learn