1 APHC010126802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3369] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 328/2025 Between: Cherukumpelem Shameem Khan and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M CHALAPATI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following ORDER AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 438 & 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 seeking to set aside the Order dated 25.09.2024 passed in CFR.No.2436 of 2024 in Crime No.184 of 2024 of Vinukonda Police Station, on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vinukonda, Guntur District (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) wherein the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 210, 223 r/w. Section 233 of BNSS for the offences under Section 103(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2) r/w. 190 of BharatiyaNyayaSanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’) and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959. 2 2. The case of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that the complainant, being the elder brother of the deceased, alleges that the death of the deceased was carried out in a horrific and brutal manner, orchestrated by the petitioners (A.1 and A.2), who are accused of engineering this diabolic act. According to the complainant, the petitioners orchestrated the crime through their henchmen, as detailed in Crime No. 184/2024. The deceased, an activist of the YSR Congress Party, was allegedly killed by the petitioners on 17.07.2024, during the Moharram festival, around 8:00 PM, at Mullamuru Bus Stand Centre, Markapuram Road, Vinukonda. The complainant claims that the crime was motivated by personal and political grudges between the deceased and certain other accused individuals, as shown in the First Information Report (FIR). The complainant's report, which named seven accused individuals, was filed on the night of 17.07.2024, and the case was registered under Crime No. 184/2024 at 1:00 AM on 18.07.2024 at the Vinukonda Police Station. Despite the fact that the complaint clearly shown A.1 and A.2 as conspirators, the police did not include them as accused under Section 61(2) of the BNS Act. The grievance of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that he possesses crucial information concerning the involvement of A.1 and A.2 in the offence. However, despite presenting this information to the police, the authorities failed to record their statements. Consequently, the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a CFR No. 2436/2024 on 05.09.2024 before the learned Magistrate, requesting to adopt the procedure prescribed in Section 233 of BNSS and to deal with the accused for the offences as stated in the complaint. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing 1st Respondent/State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 submits that while passing the order by the learned Magistrate in CFR No.2436 of 2024, following observations was made: 3 “13. The complaint is filed at the premature stage. Final report/charge sheet is not filed by the investigation officer. Office is directed to call this after filing of report by the Investigation Officer along with the main case. 14. This Court will consider this complaint, after filing of Final report/Charge Sheet in case if proposed A.1 and A.2 names are not arrayed in the Final report/charge sheet filed by Investigation Officer.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, A.1 and A.2, submits that the observation made by the learned Magistrate, that if the names of proposed A.1 and A.2 are not included after the filing of the final report, the Court will consider the complaint, may prejudice the interests of the petitioners. He further contends that the learned Magistrate should not have made such remarks regarding the future course of action, as the Court is obligated to act solely based on the material available on record. 6. After perusal of the impugned order, this Court views that the learned Magistrate should not have expressed an opinion on the course of action to be adopted subsequent to the filing of the Charge Sheet. It is the legal duty of the learned Magistrate to adhere strictly to the procedure laid down by law, and to determine, in accordance with the established legal framework, whether or not the present petitioners, A.1 and A.2, should be arrayed as accused. This determination should be made after due consideration of the relevant legal provisions. The learned Magistrate is not called upon to render a finding on matters that are speculative or hypothetical in nature. As has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the finding rendered by the Magistrate, in this instance, is not only premature but also unwarranted in light of the specific facts of the case. 7. In view of the specific facts of the case, it is clear that the observations made by the learned Magistrate may potentially cause prejudice to either the petitioners, A.1 and A.2, or the Investigating Agency. However, it is not deemed necessary to set aside the aforementioned observation in its entirety. The learned Magistrate must adhere strictly to the prescribed legal procedure, ensuring that every action aligns fully with the established legal framework. 4 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 20.03.2025 MS 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO Criminal Revision Case No.328 of 2025 Date: 20.03.2025 MS