Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2167
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
SIDDAVARAPU VENKATARAMI REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
CRLP 7561/2019
The court emphasized that irregularities in the pre-trial stage, including the lack of reasons for taking cognizance, do not necessarily vitiate the proceedings.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Cognizance - Reasons for taking cognizance - Irregularities - Dismissal of Criminal Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the order dated 27.09.2019, wherein the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions against all the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had assigned reasons while taking cognizance, and the irregularities did not vitiate the proceedings. Consequently, the Criminal Petition was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the Magistrate's procedure in taking cognizance against the left-out accused from the charge sheet, the requirement of assigning reasons for taking cognizance, and the impact of irregularities on the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharam Pal’s case and Pradeep S. Wodeyar’s case to establish that the Magistrate may issue process and summons to the accused even when disagreeing with the police report, and that irregularities in the pre-trial stage do not vitiate the proceedings.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory applications in the case were closed.
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.09.2019 in P.R.C.No.23 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, and to quash the same.
2. The charge sheet in the aforesaid case was filed in Crime No.109 of 2016 by Kavali II Town Police Station to punish the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 307 and 326 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., deleting the name of the petitioner/A4 from the array of the accused. On filing of written memo by the de facto complainant, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner/A4.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance against the accused No.4, who is left out accused by the police before filing of the charge sheet, the present Criminal Petition is filed on the ground that the Magistrate grossly erred in taking cognizance against the petitioner/A4 without there being any order and the fact of taking cognizance is only reflected in the order passed in P.R.C.No.23 of 2019 dated
27.09.2019, wherein the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Hence, implored to allow the Criminal Petition and to set aside the order dated 27.09.2019, wherein the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions against all the accused.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the learned Magistrate has followed the procedure as contemplated under the law, there is no such procedure for taking cognizance against the left out accused from the array of the accused, even the learned Magistrate disagreed with the charge sheet filed by the police, he can take cognizance straightaway under Section 190(1)(a) and (b) of Cr.P.C., as the order of the learned Magistrate is not unsustainable and the order is in accordance with law. Therefore, he would plead to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A4 would submit that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reasons while issuing summons to the left out accused from the array of the accused in the charge sheet and which is contrary to law, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Zunaid vs. State of U.P. and others1 and he also relied on another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh2 and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation3 for the proposition that the Magistrate has to assign reasons for taking cognizance, without assigning any reasons would vitiate the taking cognizance of the case, and as in the present case, no reasons have been assigned by the Magistrate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A4 would implore to quash the proceedings impugned in the present Criminal Petition.
6. As seen from the material, the Magistrate has assigned reasons while taking cognizance. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that no reasons have been assigned for taking cognizance is unsustainable.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal and others vs. State of Haryana and another4, it entails that in the event of the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, the Magistrate has two choices and he may act on the basis of the protest petition that may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing
with the police report, issue process and summon the accused. Thereafter, if on being satisfied that a case had been made out to proceed against the persons named in column 2 of the report, proceed to try the said persons or he was satisfied that a case had been made out which was triable by the Court of Sessions, he may commit the case to the Court of Sessions to proceed further in the matter.
8. As seen from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court i
