(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 4 to 8 seeking to quash the impugned Order dtd. 15/2/2022 in Criminal Revision Petition No.177 of 2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short 'the learned Sessions Judge'), confirming the Orders dtd. 28/3/2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.384 of 2018 in C.C.No.216 of 2011 passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Hyderabad (for short 'the learned trial Court') wherein the application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was allowed adding the offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
(2.) Heard Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent. Perused the record.
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the Courts had not satisfied with regard to the required ingredients of any of the alleged offences. Further, both the Courts had failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper manner and passed the impugned Orders. The certificate of the Doctor marked as Ex.P7 do not disclose any injury, which may lead to the death of the victim. Both the Courts miserably failed to consider the fact that the entire trial was completed and the prosecution cannot file an application under Sec. 216 of Cr.P.C. The power conferred upon the Court under Sec. 216 of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary and exclusive, and shall not be invoked at the instance of either party by way of an application. Hence, while seeking for quashment of the impugned Order, he relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in P.Kartikalakshmi v. Sri Ganesh and another,(2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 347. wherein at Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 it was held that: