Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pavuluri Manikyamma, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 December, 2021
Author: D.Ramesh
Bench: D.Ramesh
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2157 of 2012
ORDER:
This revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking to set aside the docket order dated 25.9.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4929 of 2012 in C.C.No.358 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bapatla, wherein cognizance is taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Initially a case was registered against the petitioners vide F.I.R.No.62/2011 on 21.9.2011 by the Pedanandipadu police and subsequently they have filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.358/2011 and the names of the petitioners were deleted. The defacto complainant who is the 2nd respondent herein has not filed any protest petition against the deletion of the names of the petitioners in the charge sheet. At the time of trial, considering the evidence of PW1, the prosecution has filed the petition under section 319 of Cr.P.C. On considering the application filed by the prosecution, the Court below i.e. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla has taken cognizance against the petitioners as A2 to A4 and issued summons to them. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. At the stage of admission, this Court has granted stay of all further proceedings against the petitioners and the same was extended time and again. Notice served on 2nd respondent but she has not chosen to appear before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that basing on 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the names of the petitioners were deleted by the investigating officer saying that there is no offence made out against the 2 present petitioners and hence deleted the names of the petitioners. But the prosecution taking into consideration PW1's chief examination, petition filed for taking cognizance against the petitioners also. Even according to the petitioners, there are no other allegations in the chief examination of PW1.
6. On perusal of the record, it clearly discloses that the defacto complainant has not filed any protest petition against the charge sheet for deletion of the names of the petitioners in the charge sheet and there are no specific averments in the petition. Hence I see no grounds made out in the petition in Crl.M.P.No.4929/2012 in C.C.No.358/2011. In view of the same, the docket order dated 25.9.2012 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4929/2012 in C.C.No.358/2011 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla is set aside.
7. Accordingly, the revision case is allowed.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dated: 14.12.2021 RD 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2157 of 2012 Dated: 14..12.2021 RD