THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.431 OF 2025

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.

2. This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the impugned docket order of the learned Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Thorrur, in PRC No.14 of 2025, dated 15.04.2025, which is as follows:

“Complainant present and objected for deletion of names of accused No.4 and 5. Heard and perused the record. Prima facie case found against A1 to A5. Hence, this court has taken cognizance against A1 to A5 for the offence punishable U/s.307 IPC r/w 34 of IPC. Issue summons on A1 to A5. Call on 24.01.2025.”

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in the grounds of revision urged that the learned Magistrate failed to follow the procedure under Criminal Procedure Code i.e. in cases where the name of the accused ought to be deleted from the array of accused in the charge sheet for failure to establish the offences against the accused, a protest petition has to be filed raising objection as to deletion of some accused or filing a Nil charge sheet by the police. Upon filing of such protest petition, the learned Magistrate has to record the statements of de-facto complainant and other witnesses, either by issuing summons or not, as contemplated under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the fact that the de-facto complainant is not an eye witness to the occurrence of the incident and therefore, his version cannot be taken into consideration to establish an offence against the revision petitioners. Since there is failure to file protest petition and since there is failure to record the statements of the concerned under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., it is prayed that the impugned docket order dated 15.04.2025 be set aside.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that in general procedure, the de-facto complainant has to file a protest petition opposing the deletion of names from the array of accused and such a procedure has not been followed by the learned Magistrate and to that extent, there is lapse in procedure.

5. The brief facts of the case are that one Mohammed Shahanaj Begum gave a report dated 09.05.2024 stating that on said day, in the evening, her husband by name Mahankali Saimallu and others were campaigning for Kadiyam Kavya who was contesting as Member of Parliament. At that time, the revision petitioners and three others have beaten her husband with sticks causing bleeding injuries to him. The police on the basis of said report have registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2024 under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of Police Station, Thorrur against the revision petitioners and three others. Further, the police completed investigation and filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 and deleted the names of revision petitioners from the array of accused as there was no offence against them.

6. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate ordered notice to the de-facto complainant and posted the matter on 15.04.2025. On said date, the de-facto complainant appeared before the court and opposed deletion of names of revision petitioners from the array of accused. In view of opposition from the de-facto complainant, the learned Magistrate perused the record and took cognizance of offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against all the accused including the revision petitioners. The learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 204 of Cr.P.C i.e. filing of the protest petition and examination of witnesses. Hence, the present revision case is filed.

7. The arguments of learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are to that effect that there is failure in observing the procedure under Sections 200 and 204