HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10116 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 8/A.1 to A.8 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 447, 434/34 IPC in P.R.C.No.38 of 2008. The said PRC was committed to the Court of Session along with C.C.No.229 of 2006 in exercise of power under 210(2) Cr.P.C. Originally, Cr.No.85 of 2006 was registered by the Challapalli police in respect of this incident/transaction against A.1 to A.8 basing on report given by Akula Bhaskar Rao for offences under Sections 324/34 IPC etc. There were several somersaults made by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation of the said crime. The Investigating Officer altered section of law in the crime by including Section 307 IPC and after further investigation, included Section 326 IPC and other penal sections of law also. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer filed final report under Section 173 IPC before the Magistrate charging only A.1 to A.4 for offences punishable under Sections 326, 447, 427, 434/34 IPC. The said charge sheet was taken on file by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Avanigadda against A.1 to A.4 for the said offences and registered as C.C.No.229 of 2006 and it was being proceeded with. After hearing the parties, on 21.11.2007, the Magistrate framed charges against A.1 to A.4 for offences under Sections 447, 427, 326/34 and 434/34 IPC. While so, the original de facto complainant – Akula Bhaskara Rao died. His father Akula Venkateswara Rao who is cited as witness No.3 in the charge sheet in C.C.No.229 of 2006 came up with the present private PRC before the Magistrate seeking registration of the same against A.1 to A.8 as well as the Investigating Officers A.9 and A.10. After making necessary enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., in which three witnesses including Akula Venkateswara Rao were examined, the Magistrate took private PRC on file for the above said offences against A.1 to A.8. The Magistrate found fault with the Investigating Officer to the effect that the Investigating Officer indulged in weighing, sifting and scrutiny of evidence instead of collecting the evidence and placing the evidence collected before the Court. But, the Magistrate dismissed private PRC against A.9 and A.10 who are the Investigating Officers. Questioning registration of private PRC against A.1 to A.8 and committing the same along with C.C.No.229 of 2006 to the Court of Session, this Criminal Petition is filed invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the Magistrate while framing charges in C.C.No.229 of 2006 should have framed charge under Section 307 IPC also against the accused after considering the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Failure to frame charge under Section 307 IPC against A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.229 of 2006 after examining the material on record, is no bar for the Magistrate to take cognizance of private PRC against the petitioners for the said offence. It is contended that taking private PRC against A.1 to A.4 under Section 307 IPC would amount to reviewing the order by which the Magistrate framed charges against A.1 to A.4 in C.C.No.229 of 2006. There can be no dispute for the proposition that the Magistrate or any criminal Court has got every power to change or alter charges already framed either by way of addition or by way of deletion or by way of correction. Such exercise of altering the charges cannot be equated with reviewing his own order by the Magistrate. On the same lines, taking private PRC against A.1 to A.4 for the offence under Section 307 IPC also cannot be equated with reviewing earlier order of the Magistrate by way of framing charges in C.C.No.229 of 2006. Insofar as A.5 to A.8 are concerned, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that no specific overt acts were attributed to any of them except by way of instigating A.1 to A.4. It is further contended that A.5 is aged 70 years and A.7 and A.8 are ladies. A.7 is wife of A.2. A.8 is wife of A.1. It may be noticed that their names do find place in F.I.R. given by Akula Bhaskar Rao himself. But the Investigating Officer deleted their names from the charge sheet in C.C.No.229 of 2006 by way of making judicial appreciation of the evidence collected by him, which is impermissible on his part. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the role attributed to A.5 to A.8 is only instigation and the lower Court did not take cognizance of P.R.C. for any offence either under Section 109 IPC or 114 IPC. When once the case is taken on file against A.5 to A.9, it is open to the trial Court to frame appropriate charges against them having regard to the evidence on record collected during investigation. I do not find any legal error on the part of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the case against A.1 to A.8 for the above offences and in committing the said P.R.C. along with C.C.No.229 of 2006 to the Sessions Court in exercise of power under Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 1st November, 2011. PNV