JAYASRI SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C by the petitioners -accused 2 to 4, having been aggrieved by the order of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No. 3877 of 2013 in C.C. No. 149 of 2013 (private complaint case) dated 23.10.2013.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the revision petitioners are the accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 149 of 2013 and the learned Magistrate should have seen that once the police filed the final report from the investigation by chargesheeting only A.1 out of the 4 accused shown in the FIR, by non -chargesheeting or deleting from array of A.2 to A.4 who are the revision petitioners herein, the remedy of the complainant is to file a private complaint case for proceeding with as a protest petition for so taking as a private complaint that too after, recording sworn statement of de facto -complainant and statements of the witnesses, if any, under Section 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. and but for that or during trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused, there is no power to the learned Magistrate and thus taking of cognizance against these revision petitioners by the learned Magistrate on the final report of police even not shown them by police as accused is Judge is illegal and not sanctioned by law that too, only on the sworn affidavits filed and not by recording as contemplated by Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Hence, to set aside the impugned order.

(3.) NOW the points that arise for consideration are: