Allowed¶49

Komma Surendra Natha Reddy v. Pedda Somappagari Sreedhar Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Feb 2025CRLRC/105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; CNR APHC010028602024; Criminal Revision Case No.105 of 2024; Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy; decided 12.02.2025; discharge under Section 227 CrPC; charge sheet drafted by Deputy Director of Prosecutions and copied by Investigating Officer; R.Sarala vs. T.S.Velu and others (2000 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 823); Sessions Case No.195 of 2020; Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022; Kadapa; murder and theft of Thaalibottu (gold sacred thread); Sections 302, 379 (or) 404 IPC; Crime No.53 of 2020, Simhadripuram Police Station; revision allowed, discharge order set aside.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Case No.105 of 2024 allowed; Order dated 27.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 set aside. ¶49

Komma Surendra Natha Reddy Vs Pedda… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Revision Case No.105 of 2024 allowed; Order dated 27.10.2023 passed in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 set aside.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet having been prepared as a draft by the Deputy Director of Prosecutions and copied/filed by the Investigating Officer is an irregularity that vitiates the prosecution and warrants discharge of the accused under Section 227 CrPC.

¶45

Court's answer

An irregularity committed by the Investigating Officer in copying a charge sheet (drafted by the Deputy Director of Prosecutions) and filing it before the Court does not envisage discharge of the accused from the alleged offences.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

On the ground of the irregularity committed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner-informant cannot be made to suffer and the entire case cannot be thrown out.

¶47

Key takeaways

The Investigating Officer in the crime has to file the charge sheet/final report basing on the evidence collected by him during the course of investigation.ratio¶47
The Order, dated 27.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.ratio¶47
Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 stands dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (by informant) against discharge of accused under Section 227 CrPC — Held: Where the Investigating Officer files a charge sheet copied from a draft prepared by the Deputy Director of Prosecutions, the lapse is a mere irregularity; it does not vitiate the investigation or entitle the accused to discharge, and the informant cannot be made to suffer for it. The Investigating Officer must file the charge sheet/final report basing on the evidence collected by him during investigation. Accordingly, the Order dated 27.10.2023 of the learned Judge, Family Court - cum - VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, discharging the accused in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 (offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 (or) 404 IPC, Crime No.53 of 2020, Simhadripuram Police Station) was set aside and Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 stood dismissed. (Reliance placed before the court below on R.Sarala vs. T.S.Velu and others, 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 823, was not expressly engaged with by this Court.)

¶1

APHC010028602024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3327]

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶8

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 105/2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Komma Surendra Natha Reddy

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

A N D

¶13

Pedda Somappagari Sreedhar Reddy and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶19

NAGESWARA RAO V

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R:

¶23

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the Order, dated 27.10.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum - VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned Sessions Judge’) whereby 1^st respondent/accused was discharged from the aforesaid case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 (or) 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) relating to Crime No.53 of 2020 of Simhadripuram Police Station.

¶24

Brief averments of the charge sheet, are that, the petitioner herein/informant has Ac.20.00 cents of cultivating land in Diddekuntla village and was cultivating orange garden in his fields situated in Survey Nos.145/3 and 145/4 and other survey numbers, situated at a distance of ½ kilometer of Diddekuntla village and one Komma Lakshmi Prasanna (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), the wife of the petitioner herein/complainant, used to attend agricultural works in their fields.

¶25

(b) On 14.03.2020 at about 8.00 a.m. the petitioner herein/informant went to Pulivendula on his personal works and returned to village at 3.30 p.m; that L.W2/Komma Lokeswara

¶26

¶27

Reddy, son of the petitioner herein/informant and the deceased; that the deceased went to their orange garden, situated by the side of the Nandyalampalle road, for getting grass.

¶28

(c) That the accused is a vagabond, spends money lavishly by incurring debts from the villagers for playing cards and borrowed amounts from L.W23/Gandluru Vengal Reddy, L.W24/ Yerramsetti Gopal, L.W25/Peddasomappagari Visweswara Reddy, L.W26/Peddasomappagari Sivakesava Reddy, L.W27/ Lavanuru Harikrishna Reddy, L.W28/Pedda Somappagari Ramachandra Reddy and L.W29/Pedda Somappagari Lakshmi Reddy for his vices.

¶29

(d) That the accused hatched a plan to commit thefts in order to clear his debts; that on 14.03.2020 at about 11.00 a.m. while the accused was present near Chavidi village along with L.W6/Komma Ramesh Reddy, he noticed the deceased proceeding towards their orange garden situated on Nandyalampalle road; that the accused followed the deceased and while the deceased was working, the accused observed the gold sacred thread (Thaalibottu) hanging around the neck of the deceased; that the deceased, with a malafide intention, went behind the accused, tied a rope around the neck of the deceased, tightened the same and committed murder of

¶30

¶31

the deceased; that the accused confirmed the death of the deceased, committed theft of gold sacred thread (Thaalibottu) and concealed the same underneath the small boulders at berry tree, situated on the eastern side ridge of orange garden of one Diddenkunta Maruthi Prasad. The case was reported to police and a case in Crime No.53 of 2020 was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigated into. After completion of investigation, police filed Charge Sheet.

¶32

The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula had taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 (or) 404 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Session under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’).

¶33

The case was numbered as Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 and made over to the file of the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. While the case is pending for trial, the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 under Section 227 CrPC seeking for his discharge from the Sessions Case contending that after preparation of a draft Charge Sheet by the Director of Prosecutions, the Investigating Officer copied and submitted the Charge Sheet on 23.06.2020. The learned Sessions Judge after

¶34

¶35

examining entire material on record, opined that as there is no difference between the draft charge sheet prepared by the Deputy Director of Prosecutions and the charge sheet presented by the Investigating Officer and both are one and the same. Learned counsel for the accused, before the learned Sessions Judge, placed reliance on the proposition of law laid down in R.Sarala vs.

¶36

T.S.Velu and others¹ , wherein it was held as under:

¶37

“Investigation and prosecution are two different aspects of administration of criminal justice – Formation of opinion as to whether on the material collection a case is made out to place the accused for trial is the exclusive function of the Officer in charge of the police station and / or his superior officers. A Public Prosecutor is appointed, as indicated in Section 24 of CrPC for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the Court and he has also the power to withdraw any case from the prosecution with the consent of the Court. He is the Officer of the Court and thus, the Public Prosecutor is to deal with a different filed in the administration of justice and he is not involved in the investigation. It is not in the scheme of the Code for supporting or sponsoring any combined operation between the investigating officer and the Public Prosecutor for filing the report in the Court.”

¶38

After examining entire material on record, learned Sessions Judge allowed the Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 vide Order, dated 27.10.2023, discharging the accused from the offences on

¶39

1 2000 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 823.

¶40

¶41

the ground of technicalities. Aggrieved by the said Order, the petitioner herein/informant filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

¶42

Heard both sides. Perused the record.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

¶44

herein/informant submits that the entire investigation is done by the Investigating Officer, he examined the witnesses and recorded the statements under Section 161 CrPC. Merely because he handed over the case file to the Deputy Director of Prosecutions in order to prepare the charge sheet and the same has been copied by the Investigating Officer and presented the same before the Court, it would not hamper the entire investigation and by virtue of the same, the accused cannot be discharged.

¶45

A perusal of entire material on record goes to show that the Investigating Officer obtained draft charge sheet prepared by the Deputy Director of Prosecutions. Merely because the Investigating Officer conducted irregularity in copying the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court, it would not in any way envisage the accused to discharge from the alleged offences. No doubt, the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure contemplated, in a right perspective, but on that ground, the entire case cannot be thrown out. Merely because certain irregularity has

¶46

¶47

been committed by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner, who is the informant in the present case, cannot be made to suffer. The Investigating Officer in the present crime vide FIR No.53 of 2020 of Simhadripuram Police Station has to file the Charge Sheet/Final Report basing on the evidence collected by him during the course of investigation. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Order, dated 27.10.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set-aside.

¶48

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case No.105 of 2024 is allowed, setting-aside the Order, dated 27.10.2023, passed in Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 in Sessions Case No.195 of 2020 by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum - VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, consequently, Crl.M.P.No.16 of 2022 stands dismissed.

¶49

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶50

______ _________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶51

12^th February, 2025.

¶52

DNB

Komma Surendra Natha Reddy v. Pedda Somappagari Sreedhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komma Surendra Natha Reddy v. Pedda Somappagari Sreedhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habibur Rahaman @ Haeeb Shaik Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Billa Venkata Bhadraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. Munwar Basha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mukkera Venkatrami Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pullaganti Jagadish Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Siragam Darababu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh