PALLAVOLU RAMMAOHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under section 482cr. P. C. seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/ a-2 in C. C. No. 122/2007 on the file of the ii Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, proddatur.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears forthe 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant despite of service of notice. Perused the records.

(3.) ON a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, the police registered a case in Cr. No. 101/2006 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of S. C. /s. T. (POA) Act, 1989. After investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against 7 others, deleting the name of the petitioner/a-2. In the charge sheet, it is stated that A-1, A-3 to A-8 along are liable for the offence under Section 147, 148, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC. The learned magistrate, however, has taken cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner/a-2 also in C. C. No. 122/2007, though the police have deleted his name from the charge sheet. In the order dated 09-07-2007, while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has stated that the statements of the complainant and one James @ Chiranjeevi, recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. prima facie, reveal that the petitioner/a-2 Rammohan Reddy beat the complainant with stick on his left shoulder and caused injury, and thus, there is prima facie case against the petitioner/a-2 also. The learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner/a-2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/a-2 preferred revision in criminal Revision Petition No. 28/2007 before the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kadapa at proddatur. The learned Sessions Judge, by orderdated 05-11-2007, dismissed the revision, but, however set aside the issuance of non-bailable warrant and directed the trial court to issue summons to the petitioner/a-2. In the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the Magistrate can differ with the police report and take cognizance of the offence and the learned Magistrate has furnished reasons for doing so, and hence, the discretion was exercised in a legal manner.