THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Crl.R.C.No.40 of 2009 Dated:26th October, 2009. Between: K.Rama Sudhakar ….Petitioner/Accused and 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr. …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.40 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 12.11.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5382 of 2008 in C.C.No.181 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the de facto complainant under Section 323 Cr.P.C. and converted the C.C. into P.R.C. for being committed to the Court of Session. 2. Background facts of the case in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the accused in C.C.No.181 of 2008 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, are: The accused married K.Parvathi in the year 1991. During the wedlock, they had one son and one daughter. As per the version of the prosecution, the accused became addicted to vices and started harassing his wife K.Parvathi both physically and mentally. K.Parvathi having not able to put up harassment committed suicide after killing her daughter K.Sabitha @ Saloria (deceased No.2). A report came to be presented before the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Kadapa. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.105 of 2007 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC was registered. After due investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned Magistrate took the charge-sheet on file as CC No.181 of 2008. Whileso, the de facto complainant filed a petition under Section 323 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 306 IPC and to commit the same to the Court of Session for trial. The learned Magistrate, after considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the accused and learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, proceeded to allow the application, by order dated 12.11.2008. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 22.01.2009. 2nd respondent/de facto complainant entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the material brought on record is not sufficient to take cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 306 IPC and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC are not made out to draw inference that the petitioner/accused is the person who abated the deceased No.1 to commit suicide. She would also contend that the very application filed by the de facto complainant under Scetion 323 Cr.P.C. is impermissible in the given facts and circumstances of the case. In support of her contentions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in V.Shankaraiah v. State of A.P.,[1] and the order dated 21.02.2005 passed in Crl.R.C.No.234 of 2005 (in S.Karimulla Khan v. The State of A.P.) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh & Ors[2]. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant supported the order impugned in the revision. 7. The issue that falls for consideration in this revision is, whether the committal court is empowered to convert the C.C. into P.R.C. and commit the same to the Court of Session for being tried. I make it myself clear that I am not going to the aspect whether the ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC are made out, since the petitioner has opportunity to plead for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 8. Section 323 Cr.P.C. reads as hereunder: 323. Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial, Magistrate finds case should be committed:- If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing the judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained (and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made).” Section 323 Cr.P.C. speaks of the power of the committal Court. At whose instance the power is to be exercise is immaterial. The suicidal note has been placed on record along with material papers filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The learned Magistrate, being the Committal Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 323 Cr.P.C., considered the material brought on record including the suicidal note and proceeded to allow the application filed by the de facto complainant. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the learned Magistrate warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 or 401 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 26th October, 2009. cs [1] 2002(1) L.S. 345 [2] 2007 (7) SCALE 167