The High Court of Telangana rejected a writ petition challenging the police omission of certain individuals from the charge sheet. The court held that inclusion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is the trial court's mandate. The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA: AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER
WRIT PETITION NO: 11204 OF 2022
Between:
Smt. Bonagiri Jyothi, W/o. Late Krishna,Aged 34 years Caste Mala, R/o.11- 4-27 0, Chilakalaguda Secunderabad
...PETTTIONER(S)
AND
.,.RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police in filing the charge sheet in Special SC No. B/2019 on the file Vl Additional Ir/SJ-cum-SC/ST Court, Secunderabad without showing the respondents 6 to 8 names as accused persons in the said charge sheet, by showing his name in the FIR No.24712016 by
the 5th respondent, by deletingthe name of the respondents6 to 8 in the charge sheet without considering the representationdated2811212021is illegal, arbitrary and against to theprinciplesof natural justice and also violativeof Articles 14, 19, 2.1 and 300-A of constitution oflndia and consequently direct the respondents2 to 5 to include the name of therespondents 6 to B as accused personsin registering the FIR No. 2412016 under Section506 lPC, Sec 3 (l) (X) SC/SAT(POA) Act in the said FIR asper thecomplaint contents is highly illegal, arbitrary andagainst the principles of naturaljustice and also violativeof Article 14, 19 and 21 and 300-4 of Constitution ofIndia andconsequentlydirect the respondents police to include the sections 406,467, 471, 12OB in Special sc No. 8/2019 in the interest ofjustice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavitfiled insupportof the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to5 policeto include the names of the respondents6 to 8 in the charge sheet as accusedpersonsin SpecialSC No. 8/2019on the file Vl Addiiional MSJ-cum-SC/ST Court,Secunderabad, pending disposalof the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRISRIKANTH PULIPAKA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1to 5: SRI A.MANOJ KUMAR, AGP for HOME reP. GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6to 8: None Appeared
The Court made the following:ORDER
THE HON.BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.11204 oF 2022
ORDER
This writ Petition is fired by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus to decrare the action of respondent-porice in firing charge sheet in Crime No.247 of 2016 of Chilkalguda police Station, Hyderabad, which was numbered as Special S.C.No.B of 2Ol9 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge _ cum _ SC/ST Court, secunderabad, by dereting the names of unofficial respondent Nos.6 to B, without considering the representation, dated 28.12.2021, of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to include the names of the unoFficial respondent Nos.6 to g and Sections 406,467, 47t and 120B of I.p.C. in the subject special S.C.
2
<br>
DT.SAJ W.P.No.l 1204 of 2022
direct the respondent- police to add the names of unofficial respondent Nos.6 to B in the subject charge sheet.
J
DT,SA,J W.P.No. I I204 of 2022
Ii
,
in crime No'24 of 2016 of chirkarguda porice station was registered for the offences under Section 506 of I.p.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thereafter, since the petitioner made certain allegations against the Investigating officer concerned, the said crime was transferred to CCS, DD, Hyderabad, and re_registered as Crime No.247 of 2016. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against one S. Mahender Reddy, which was assigned speciar s.c.No.g of 2019 0n the fire of VI Additionar Metroporitan Sessions Judge - cum - SC/ST Court, Secunderabad. As per the submissions made, the trial schedule has been fixed in the subject Special s.c. The contention of the petitioner is that though there is material evidence against the unofficiar respondent Nos.6 to g, they are not arrayed as accused in the subject Special S,C.
6" Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to extract the provisions under Section 319 Cr.p.C., which reads as follows:
"319.power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
1
Dr.SA.l W.P.No.I1204 oi 2022
I
(3) Any person attendingthe Court, althoughnot under arrest or upona summons, may be detained by such Court for if,"-purpot"of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offencewhich he apPears tohave committed.
(4) Where the Courtproceeds againstany person under sub-section(1) then -
(a) the proceedings inrespect of such personshall be
, commenced afresh,and the witnessesre-heard; (b) subject to theprovlsionsof clause (a), the case may proa""d as if-suchperson had been an- accusedpersonwhen ih" Court tookcognizanceof the offenceupon which the inquiry or trialwas commenced."
T.InviewoftheMandateunderSection3lgCr'P'C',itisopento the court dealingwith the subjectSpecials.c., to take the evidence into considerationin the course of trial and passorders in accordance with law. Underthesecircumstances,a directionas sought for by thepetitioner cannotbe granted.
8 With the above observation,the Writ Petition is disposedof'
Miscellaneous Petitions,if any, pendingin this Writ Petition
shall stand closed.There shall be no order as to costs'
Sd/. P. PADMANABHAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' t' SECTION OFFICER
To '1. On" CC to SRI SRIKANTH PULIPAKA, Advocate IOPUCI 2.TwoCcstotheGPforHome,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana'IOUll
HIGH COURT
DTSAJ
DA'lED:0410312022
ORDER
iit: .
<br>)
U 6 A.lI 2i2 :
WP.No.11204 of 2022
DTSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
<br>()
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the police to include additional names as accused persons in the charge sheet when Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowers the trial court to do so.
Whether the omission of certain individuals from the charge sheet is illegal and arbitrary violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Bonagiri Jyothi
The State of Telangana
Narsimha Reddy
Smt. Aruna Reddy
lr/anoj Kumar Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
