ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of the IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed in Crl.M.P.No.4589 of 2019 in C.C.No.1598 of 2018, dated 27.01.2020, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/A-15, under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.

2. Revision Petitioner is accused No.15 in Crime No.526 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 186, 353, 120-B read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 7 (1) (a) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932. Subsequently the Sub-Inspector of Police, Osmania University Police Station, after completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.1598 of 2018. It is stated that since the name of the petitioner is not shown in the First Information Report and no specific overt acts were attributed against the petitioner in the charge sheet and also in the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.4589 of 2019 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. requesting the trial Court to discharge him for the said alleged offences. However, the trial Court having considered the entire material available on record, dismissed the said petition by its order, dated 27.01.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/A-15 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the record.

4. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary, illegal, weight of evidence and against the facts and probabilities of the case. It is also submitted that on the basis of documentary evidence on record and legal submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the petition filed for discharge of the petitioner for the charges framed against him. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the accused column at Sl.No.15 of the First Information Report and that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner in the charge sheet and also in the statement of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that the 2nd respondent is none other than the Sub-Inspector of Police and he has no knowledge about the students, who had attacked the police officials, and that he filed the complaint only after obtaining the hostel inmate records from the concerned authority. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner participated in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly by the university students and moreover there are no specific overt acts against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that the alleged incident occurred in front of new Maneru Hostel of the university, in which one student committed suicide, but the petitioner was a resident of another hostel and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence occurred in front of Maneru Hostel and that mere presence of the petitioner when the alleged incident was occurred does not constitute any offence. It is also submitted that as per admitted facts and documents relied upon by the prosecution, no case is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have dropped the