Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
Injeti Venkata Rami Reddy —Petitioner
versus
Shaik Chand Basha and Anr. —Respondents
Cri. R.C. No. 401 of 2013
Decided on : 5.3.2013
Held: Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, accepted the alibi pleaded by the petitioner and deleted the name of the petitioner from the array of the accused after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. The learned Magistrate, on going through the charge-sheet and the documents enclosed to it, more precisely, the 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PWs 1 to 4, proceeded to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC against A1 to Al9 including the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A3. Had the learned Magistrate treated the objections placed on record by the de facto complainant as complaint petition, necessarily the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C is required to be followed. The learned Magistrate has not treated the objections placed on record by the de facto complainant as complaint petition. The main basis for taking cognizance of the offences is based on material gathered. by the police during the course of investigation, more precisely the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Magistrate on the 161 Cr.P.C statements of LWs l to 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that his name has not been spoken out by LWs 1 to 4. Therefore, the learned Magistrate is justified in taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner alongwith other accused. There is no flaw in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. It is required to be noted that the petitioner was very much accessible to the Investigating Officer as he pleaded alibi and placed on record material to substantiate his plea. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner avoided the investigating officer during the investigation of the case. In these circumstances, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued N.B.W. straightaway. (Para 8)
ORDER
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.—This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 15.2.2013 passed in PRC No.7 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 and 307 read with 149 IPC against A1 to A19 including the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A3 and whose name has been deleted in the array of the accused white filing charge-sheet in Crime No.21 of 2012 of Allagadda Town P.S.
2. Facts, in brief are:
lnjeti Venkata Raghava Reddy @ Raghava Reddy and Injeti Krishna Reddy were staunch followers of Bhuma Nagi Reddy, Ex. Member of Parliament of Nandyal Parliamentary Constituency. Both of them were trying to establish supremacy over the other in the village Chintakunta. On 24.2.2012 at about 9.30 p.m., Injeti Krishna Reddy (hereinafter referred to as D2) was chitchatting with his wife-Govindamma (hereinafter referred to as D1), his son-Injeti Mallikharjuna Reddy (hereinafter referred to as D4) and Pakir Nadipi Mabu @ Dubba (hereinafter referred to as D3) in his house. Al to A19 formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons with the common object of doing away the life of D2-Krishna Reddy and his associates. They trespassed into the house of D2 by pushing main gate and attacked D1 to D4 and LW8-Sathugari Rama Subba Reddy. D1 to D4 succumbed to the injuries at the scene of offence. More precisely; A2, A9 and A6 dealt blows on D1 Govindamma A3, A4, A8, A10, A14 and A15 dealt blow with deadly weapons on D2 Krishna Reddy A1, A6, A16 dealt blows with deadly weapons on D3-Pakkir Nadipi Mabu @ Dubba; A4, A7, A10, A11, A12, A13, Al7 A18 dealt blows on D4 Mallikharjuna Reddy, and A2, A3 and
A19 dealt blows with deadly weapons on LW8-Sathugari Rama Subba Reddy and caused bleeding injuries to him. Apart from the injured, LW1 Shaik Chand Basha, LW2 Ketireddy Jaya Rami Reddy, LW3 Annem Sunith, LW4 Khammam Naga Sulochana, LW5 Suraboina Sujaiha, LW6 Boya Kondaiah and LW7 Madiga Bala Hussaini witnessed the incident.
LWl Shaik Chand Basha presented a report on 25.2.2012 at about 15 hours before the Station House Officer, Allagadda P.S., who registered a case in Crime No.2l of 2012 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC and issued F.I.R. During the course of investigation, A3 Injeti Venkatrami Reddy, A5 Kristipadu Pedda Dasthagiri Reddy @ Dasthagiri Reddy, A7 Kurduru Venkatrami Reddy pleaded alibi. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhone examined the alibi pleaded by A3, A5 and A 7 and accepted the alibi pleaded by A3 Injeti Venkatrami Reddy while rejecting the alibi pleaded by A5 Kristipadu Pedda Dasthagiri Reddy @ Dasthagiri Reddy and A7 Kurduru Venkatrami Reddy. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool issued orders to delete the name of A3 Injeti Venkatrami Reddy from the array of the accused. For better appreciation, I may refer the text of the proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool in RC:No.C1/11520/2012, dated 8.8.2012 and it is thus:
“As per the orders of Dy. Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool in the reference 1st cited, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhone… took up investigation in Cr. No.21/2012 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC of Allagadda Town P.S.
The S.D.P.O, Dhone in his enquiry revealed that according to the versions of witnesses examined in the enquiry and documentary evidence collected by him the Injett Venkatrami Reddy (A3) in Cr.No.21/2012 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302, 307 read with 149 IPC of Allagadda Town P.S .... was not at all present at P. Chintakunta Village on 24.2.2012 at 10.45 p.m., he was present at Chinnakomerla Village of Mylavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District to attend the marriage of Chinatryapalli Lakshmi who is the daughter of his cousin and he was not present at scene of offence on 24.2.2012 at P. Chinthakunta Village. The witnesses who are very much known to A3 categorically stated that A3
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
