The Magistrate can take cognizance against the deleted accused before committing the case to the Sessions Court, and the order of the Sessions Judge to add the array of the deleted accused has to wait till the case reaches the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C.

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 17.09.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.125 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, in allowing the Criminal Revision Petition by setting aside the order dated 31.05.2017 in C.C.S.R.No.3727 of 2015, wherein the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, took cognizance of the offence for the deleted accused on protest petition in Crime No.19 of 2014 of II Town L & O Police Station, Kakinada, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and to quash the said order dated 17.09.2018 in Criminal Revision Petition No.125 of 2017.

2. The facts succinctly are that:

The petitioner/complainant who is an agriculturist has admitted his daughter in PG Course in GSL Medical College, Rajanagaram, believing the words of the accused Nos.1 to 5 that they are providing good quality of education and having best teaching staff. Later, they have noticed many irregularities, lacking of facilities and lacking of teaching staff, the same was questioned by the petitioner/complainant as well as the daughter of the petitioner herein, who is the deceased. Therefore, the respondents/accused have bore grudge against the daughter of the petitioner and developed enmity and treated the petitioner in humiliation and harassed the deceased physically and mentally. Therefore, the daughter of the petitioner herein committed suicide.

3. Basing upon the writings of the deceased, which ultimately shows the fingers towards A1 to A12, where the deceased-Dr. Srilakshmi stated that A1 to A12 are responsible for the death of the deceased and on the death of the daughter of the petitioner herein, the petitioner has lodged a report to Kakinada II Town Police and the police registered the case in Crime No.19 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and subsequently altered to Section 306 I.P.C. and investigated the case and forwarded the charge sheet against A1 by deleting the names of A2 to A12.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed a protest petition/complaint before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada in C.C.S.R.No.3727 of 2015 in Crime No.19 of 2014 of Kakinada II Town L & O Police Station. The learned Magistrate, by an order dated 31.05.2017, has allowed the protest petition/complaint and took cognizance of the case against A2 to A6 on file for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C. and issued NBWs against them, dismissed the complaint against A7 to A12.

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.05.2017 in taking cognizance against A2 to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C., A2 to A5 preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.125 of 2017 on the ground that the complainant failed to make out a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 I.P.C. r/w Section 34 I.P.C. against the accused and on entire reading of the sworn statement, it does not constitute the offence and, therefore, prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Petition No.125 of 2017.

6. Learned III Additional Sessions Judge, on relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jile Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, has allowed the Criminal Revision Petition in the following manner, which is reproduced hereunder in verbatim:

"As per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Jile Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another relied on by learned counsel for revision petitioners which is referred supra, it is very clear that when once the case relating to the death of deceased is committed to the Sessions Court, the Magistrate is having no authority to issue summons or warrant against the revision petitioners herein on the complaint filed by the complainant. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would mean addition of the pet