1. The petitioners are A-2 & A-3, by names N.Jyotsna and Dr.Krishna Kamal, wife and son of A-1 – Dr.Chinthala Kishan. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant by name Sri Boga Anil Kumar, impleaded by virtue of orders of this Court, dated 02.01.2019.

2. Notice even sent to the 2nd respondent, there is a refusal to take. Hence, returned as per the Postal endorsement, dated 04.02.2019, filed in USR.No.6949 of 2019 is a sufficient service.

3. The petitioners are impugning the cognizance order of the learned Magistrate during trial invoking Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against them though they were not originally the accused either from the FIR or from the police final report taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the then, under Sections 190 read with 173 Cr.P.C. It is during trial from the evidence of P.W.1, L.W.1-de facto complainant supra, they were impleaded by impugned order, dated 14.08.2018, in Crl.M.P.No.252 of 2017 in C.C.No.287 of 2014, filed by the State representing through Station House Officer, IV Town Police Station, Nizamabad.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent State and taken as heard the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for reasons supra. Perused the material on record.

5. The contentions raised in the present revision petition impugning the said impleadment and cognizance order of the learned Magistrate supra from the cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), against sole accused Dr.Chintala Kishan, now A-1, which is outcome of report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant-Boga Anil Kumar, dated 03.11.2013, covered by FIR.No.314 of 2013 of IV Town Police Station, Nizamabad District, are that after examination of P.W.1 on 04.08.2016, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the present application on 21.02.2017 invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C requesting the learned trial Magistrate (Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad District), to array wife and son of Dr.Ch.Kishan (A-1) as A-2 and A-3 and for the said petition, A-1–Dr.Ch.Kishan filed a detailed counter in opposing the same and without even looking into it and beyond the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C. simply for sake of asking, even charge sheet has no whisper against them with any role arrayed as accused by the impugned order of the learned Magistrate thereby unsustainable and liable to be set aside, for there is no any prima facie and sustainable accusation to the standard required to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. to array them and to summon them and thereby the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also the contention that the learned Magistrate even ignored the fundamental requirement of ordering notice before taking cognizance including under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the additional accused/revision petitioners as A-2 & A-3 and that is also a ground to set aside the order.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order; from a close reading of FIR shows more than one accused involved and statement of L.W.1 also refers the petitioners and merely because police final report did not specifically mention or the original cognizance, said learned Magistrate did not take cognizance; that is not a ground even after evidence came on record to take cognizance within the judicial discretion of the learned Magistrate under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and there is no notice contemplated, from the very wording of Section 319 Cr.P.C., for the additional accused pre-cognizance stage proposed accused summoning and enquiring into the matter and thereby the revision is liable to be dismissed for no impropriety or illegality to interfere with the impugned order.

7. The impugned order reads to the core of relevancy for the purpose of answering the present revision that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed the petit