Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pinnika Madusudhana Rao, Prakasam Dt 2 ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp And Anr., on 17 December, 2021
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2811 Of 2017
ORDER:-
The petitioners are accused nos.2,5 and 9 in Crime No.47/2016 for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 232, 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC. Aggrieved by the docket proceedings dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur in P.R.C.No.48/2017, the present revision is filed.
2. As per the complaint given by the complainant Smt. Pinnika Lakshmi Rajyam on 15.3.2016, the Inspector of police, Markapur registered a case in Cr.no.47/2016 under sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 341, 323, 302 r/w 149 IPC against Pinnika Lakshmi Prasad- A1, Pinnika Madhusudhana Rao-A2, Pinnika Upendra Yadav-A3, Pinnika Abhiram-A4, Pinnika Mallika-A5, Nagam Ramakrishna-A6, Nagam Venkateswarlu-A7, Nagam Narasimhulu-A8, Pinnika Sarada- A9, Chinthalapudi Ramakrishna-A10 and some others. After the investigation, they filed charge sheet on 05.7.2016 and in the said charge sheet, the names of the petitioners were deleted as A2, A5 and A9 which reads as follows:
"As per the evidence of LW16 to LW24, LW45 deleted the names of the alleged accused A2, A5 and A9 after obtaining permission from the Superintendent of police, Ongole vide proceedings in C.No.163/C1/DCRB/2016, dt.11.6.2016 and also served deletion memo to LW1."
3. Aggrieved by the said action, the defacto-complainant has filed objections with respect to the deletion of the names of A2, A5 and A9. Considering the said objections, the Additional Judicial First Class 2 Magistrate, Markapur observed that prima-facie it appears that there is material to proceed even against A2, A5 and A9. In the circumstances, the case is taken on file against A1 to A12. Questioning the said docket orders, the present revision is filed.
4. The contention of the petitioners herein is that the investigating officer after examining 45 witnesses filed charge sheet and on perusal of the evidence, the witnesses have not made any allegations with regard to the participation of petitioners herein in the incident. The 1st petitioner who is presently working as Revenue Divisional Officer was not present at the time of offence and he was working as Mandal Revenue Officer of Cheemakurthy. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the Court below without considering the record and the statements made by the witnesses based on the objection petition filed by the defacto-complainant has proceeded against A2, A5 and A9 i.e. petitioners herein and issued summons, is contrary to section 190 of Cr.P.C. To support his contention he relied on section 173(2) and 190 (1&2) Cr.P.C which reads as follows:
173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;3
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub- section (2), may take cognizance of any offence-
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.
5. Learned Counsel has sternly stated that the procedure contemplated under section 173(2) and 190 (1)(a) of Cr.P.C has not followed by the Court below. To support his contention, learned counsel has mainly relied on the statements made by the witnesses. According to the statement of LW6, LW12 and LW15 clearly disclosed that no lady is participated or present at the scene of offence. 1st petitioner who is Mandal Revenue Officer is not present at the scene of offence and he was working at Cheemakurthy at the time of incident. But without taking the statements made by the witnesses, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons is without applying of the mind.
6. Contrary to the same, learned Senior Counsel Sri Veera Reddy, appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant has submitted that on perusal of the docket order it clearly discloses that the learned Magistrate after perusing the entire material and record and also the statement of LW1, the Court feels that there is prima-facie material to 4 proceed against the petitioners and hence the case has taken on file as P.R.C against A1 to A12 and issued summons. The very case of the defacto complainant is that the 1st petitioner who was Mandal Revenue Officer and now presently working as Revenue Divisional Officer is the key person with regard to the disputes between the families. By influencing his official position, police has purposefully taken the evidence from LW33, LW34, LW36 and to see that they want to delete the names of the 1st petitioner.
7. Reply to the contentions made by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no participation of ladies at the scene of offence is not a case for deletion. In fact the charges are framed against the accused are including 120-B IPC. For better appreciation section 120(A&B) of IPC is extracted hereunder:
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.] 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.5
8. Hence after perusing the records, the Court below has satisfied and issued summons to the petitioners and taken cognizance. It is not out the place to mention that as per section 190 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has every power to take cognizance under sub-section 1 of section 190 Cr.P.C.
9. After hearing both the counsel and on perusal of the record no doubt that the crime is registered under section 120(B) IPC conspiracy along with other relevant sections and in view of the same, when the conspiracy is included, the real participation of the persons may not be relevant for taking the cognizance. Even on perusal of the statements made by the witnesses though the names of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners were not reflected but it cannot be brush aside the involvement of the petitioners in conspiracy.
10. In the said circumstances, the Court below has rightly taken cognizance as per the provisions of section 190 Cr.P.C. and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order.
11. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 17.12.2021 RD 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.2811 OF 2017 Dated 17.12.2021 RD