CRLP/8399/2009 of Ramisetti Suryanarayana , Nanaajee, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2011

ORAL ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directionto the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu, East Godavaridistrict to take cognizance of Section 307 IPC along with Sections 147,148, 324, 447, 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC already takencognizance of in C.C.No.59 of 2008 on his file and register aspreliminary registered case and take consequential measures.

The petitioner is the defacto complainant and the respondents 2 to8 are A1 to A7 in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, theparties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the calendarcase.

The prosecution case is as follows:

The defacto complainant and his family members own an extentof Ac.6-27 cents of wet land in Sy.No.255/1 to 258/2 of Utharakanchivillage, Prathipadu mandal, which is their ancestral property. In theyear 2005, A1 to A3 issued a legal notice to the defacto complainantdemanding him to get their wet land registered under the guise of analleged agreement of sale in favour of A1 to A3. Hence, the defactocomplainant filed suit O.S.No.122 of 2005 on the file of the Junior CivilJudge, Prathipadu against A1 to A3 and obtained permanent injunctionin his favour. In view of that, the accused bore grudge against thedefacto complainant and his family members and on 1.7.2008 at about6.00 a.m. all the accused along with their men armed with weapons likeknives, sticks and spears trespassed into the land of the defactocomplainant and attacked him and others with an intention to kill themand abused them in filthy and vulgar language and A1 to A3 hacked thedefacto complainant. Hence the complaint. During the course ofinvestigation, the Station House Officer, Prathipadu filed charge sheetagainst the A1 to A7 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 447 and 506(2)

read with Section 149 IPC and at the stage of committal to the court ofSessions, the trial Court took cognizance of the matter under Sections324, 447, 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC excluding the offencepunishable under Section 307 on the ground that the injuries weresimple in nature and there was a civil dispute between the parties.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defactocomplainant that the allegations made clearly attract the provisions ofSection 307 IPC and the learned Magistrate committed mistake in nottaking cognizance of the same.

It is contended on behalf of A1 to A7 that on the basis of theobservations by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4419 of 2008, theMagistrate has not taken cognizance of the case under Section 307IPC.

It is pertinent to note there that if Section 307 IPC is included, thelearned Magistrate has to give preliminary registered case number. The learned Magistrate has got discretion to examine the matter andcome to right conclusion in that context before taking necessary furthersteps independently or without being influenced by any other aspects. Therefore, the Magistrate is directed to hear both the parties and passnecessary orders with regards to the application of Section 307 IPCbasing on the material available, without being influenced by any of theobservations made hereinabove.

The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of.

Dated: 29-12-2012DA

________________________

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

Crl.P.No.8399 of 2009

29.12.2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

Crl.P.No.8399 of 2009

Date: 29.12.2011

Between:

Ramisetti Suryanarayana

.. Petitioner/Defacto complainant

And

The State of A.P., rep. by itsPublic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad and others.

.. Respondents