A NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed to pass orders to differ the trail in C.C. No. 274 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool with a further direction to conduct trial after outcome of the result of the protest complaint filed by the Petitioner against the prime accused in CFR. No. 8646 of 2008 on the file of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.

(2.) The counsel appearing for the Petitioner mainly urged that when the protest complaint filed by the Petitioner for inclusion of the prime accused-K. Rambhupal Reddy for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is pending, the C.C. No. 274 of 2007 wherein the charge sheet filed against Respondents 2 to 6 herein is posted for trial. The witnesses in C.C. No. 274 of 2007 and Petitioner protest complaint in CFR. No. 8646 of 2008 are one and the same and if trial is allowed to be conducted in C.C. No. 274 of 2007 pending protest complaint against the prime accused, it will have adverse bearing on two cases as there is possibility of variance of evidence. Hence trial in C.C. No. 274 of 2007 may be differed till the outcome of the protest complaint.

(3.) As seen from the record, originally the Petitioner filed complaint against one K. Rambhupal Reddy and Respondents 2 to 6 for the offences under Sections 448, 323, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate having gone through the contents in the complaint forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. The police after due investigation found prima facie case against Respondents 2 to 6 and filed charge sheet before the learned Magistrate and the same is numbered as C.C. No. 274 of 2007. Having aggrieved with the filing of the charge sheet by deleting the name of the alleged prime accused-K. Rambhupal Reddy, the Petitioner herein filed another private complaint under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure for the same offences which are noted in C.C. No. 274 of 2007. Having gone through the contents of the private complaint, the learned Magistrate again forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for further investigation. It is CFR. No. 8646 of 2008. The same is pending before the police for investigation. The police only after due investigation file charge sheet before the Court if there is any prima facie material against the alleged K. Rambhupal Reddy. Simply because CFR. No. 8646 of 2008 is pending before the police for investigation as ordered by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be said that there is a possibility of variance of evidence. The Petitioner is at liberty to adduce evidence before the Court in C.C. No. 274 of 2007 on the material particulars stated in the complaint. Ultimately, it is the Court to decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Even though the police file charge sheet against K. Rambhupal Reddy, no prejudice will be caused to the complainant in C.C. No. 274 of 2007. Hence absolutely I see no grounds to differ the trial in C.C. No. 274 of 2007 pending CFR. No. 8646 of 2008.