: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 27.02.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2022 in Crime No.66 of 2022 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise) at Mancherial.

The brief facts of the case are that the matter arises out of Crime No.66 of 2022 of P.S. Srirampur, wherein initially a case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 294-B, 323, 324, 341 read with 34 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5, while deleting the name of A-2 by placing her in the “not charged” column. Aggrieved by the deletion of A-2, the defacto complainant filed a protest petition. The trial Court, upon considering the sworn statement of the complainant and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., found prima facie material showing involvement of A-2 and, by order dated 27.02.2023, allowed the protest petition and took cognizance against A-2 along with other accused. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/A-2 filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in allowing the protest petition without properly appreciating the scope of Section 190 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer, after conducting a detailed investigation, rightly deleted the name of A-2, and the trial Court mechanically took cognizance merely based on the protest petition and sworn statement without independent application of mind. He contended that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, thereby causing prejudice to her. He further contended that once the Court chose to rely on the protest petition and sworn statement, it ought to have treated the same as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and followed the mandatory procedure, and failure to do so amounts to a serious procedural irregularity. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in taking cognizance against A-2 by independently assessing the material available on record. He contended that the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions of the Investigating Officer and can take cognizance if prima facie material exists. He further contended that the statements of the defacto complainant and the victim clearly disclose the active involvement of A-2 in the commission of offence, and therefore, the order of trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss this Criminal Revision Case.

Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served upon the petitioner/A-2 at the stage of the protest petition and that the procedure contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was not followed. In this regard, it is to be noted that in a protest petition filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, issuance of notice to the accused is not mandatory, unlike the procedure contemplated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The record further reveals that the sworn statement of L.W.1 was duly recorded, and the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also taken into consideration, wherein there is a categorical assertion regarding the presence of petitioner/A-2 at the scene of offence. Moreover, the Investigating Officer, while dele