1. These three petitions have been filed by accused No.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 25, and 27 challenging order dated 21.04.2018, passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya, in C.C.No.380/2009, whereby the learned Magistrate has committed the said criminal case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandya.

2. Heard Shri B.T. Ventakesh, learned advocate for the petitioners, Shri S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State and Ms. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned advocate for respondent No.2.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, respondent No.2, Basavaraju filed a complaint in Mandya West Police Station, stating inter alia that a furious mob which was protesting against Congress leader Shri G. Madegowda, on an assumption that he was responsible for the defeat of a rival candidate Shri D.C. Thammanna, hurled stones and manhandled Shri G. Madegowda. Police registered FIR No.255/2008 alleging commission of offences punishable under various Sections of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.380/2009 against 24 accused persons out of 34, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 146, 147, 188, 323, 427, 448, r/w 149 of IPC and Section 2(b) of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. Thus, ten persons named in the FIR were dropped. Complainant filed a protest petition before the trial Court seeking addition of remaining ten persons also as accused; and to include Section 307 of IPC in the charge sheet. On 12.03.2010, the learned Magistrate ordered to include the proposed accused and Section 307 of IPC in the charge sheet.

4. Accused No.23, 25 to 33 challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate before this Court in Criminal Petitions No.1610/2010, 1777/2011 and Misc.Crl.No.1879/2011. This Court, by common order dated 12.09.2011, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration from the stage of filing of protest petition.

5. After recording the sworn statement of witnesses, by his order dated 21.03.2012, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and included five additional accused as accused No.25 to 29 and framed charges on 30.08.2016 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 146, 147, 188, 323, 427, 448, r/w 149 of IPC and Section 2(b) of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

6. Thereafter, on 22.03.2017, complainant filed an application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to commit the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, by contending that accused had committed offence under Section 307 IPC also. All accused contested the said application contending that there were no ingredients of Section 307 IPC. After hearing, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order holding that there was prima facie material attracting ingredients of Section 307 IPC and committed the case to the Sessions Court.

7. Assailing the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, Shri B.T. Venkatesh, learned advocate for the petitioners urged following contentions:

that an application seeking committal of proceedings by any person other than a Public Prosecutor is not maintainable;

that inclusion of any further offences could be considered only after recording of evidence; and

that the learned Magistrate has no power to review his order.

8. In support of his contentions, learned Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance on the following authorities:

1. (2001)8 SCC 394 (Harijinder Kaur Vs. State of Jharkhand and another)

2. (2014)3 SCC 92 (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others)

9. Ms. B.V. Vidyulatha learned Advocate for complainant-respondent No.2, opposing the petitions argued that the petitioners did not urge the aforesaid grounds before the learned Magistrate. In support of her submission, she placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ananda Shetty And Another Vs. Aithu Poojary and Others(ILR 1998 KAR 3829).

10. I have carefully considered the submissions