BOLEWAR VEERYAPPA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 3 and 4 in Crime No. 102 of 2012 on the file of Madnoor Police Station, Nizamabad District assailed the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bichkunda, Nizamabad District in Crl.M.P. No. 1231 of 2013.

(2.) A case was registered initially against four accused including accused 3 and 4, who are the petitioners herein upon a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. The husband of the 2nd respondent allegedly was murdered by accused No. 1 at the instigation of accused 3 and 4. After due investigation, Police deleted the names of accused 3 and 4 from the array of the accused and filed charge -sheet against accused 1 and 2 only. The 2nd respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant, questioned the charge -sheet through Crl.M.P. No. 1231 of 2013 and prayed to include accused 3 and 4 also as accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bichkunda allowed Crl.M.P. No. 1231 of 2013 through orders dated 20 -12 -2013 and took cognizance of the case against accused 1 to 4. He ordered issuance of Non -Bailable Warrants (NBWs) against accused 3 and 4. Questioning the taking cognizance of the case against accused 3 and 4 by the Committal Court, the present petition is laid.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners in any event. He pointed out that even according to the prosecution, accused 3 and 4 are alleged abettors and that no case of abetment is made out against them. He referred to Ranganayaki v. State : (2004) 12 SCC 521 where the Supreme Court had occasion to explain the ingredients of the abetment. It was held that the intentional adding and active complicity are essential to constitute the offence under Section 109 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the statements, the witnesses did not clearly speak about the specific complicity of the petitioners in the abetment of the murder of the deceased by accused No. 1. I may venture to repeat that in a quash petition, it is not permissible to assess and evaluate the evidence, more so from Section 161 Cr.P.C and Section 164 Cr.P.C statements. In the complaint, the 2nd respondent stated that accused No. 1 murdered her husband having been instigated by the petitioners herein. Whether such instigation is established or not is a matter of evidence which can be decided at the time of trial and not in a petition of this nature.