THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2486 of 2008. ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and also the learned Public Prosecutor. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dt. 9.1.2008 in Crl. R.P.No. 58 of 2007 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, his brother Lakshmi Prabhakar Reddy and his mother Bala Nagamma are living together and that they are the owners of the land in S.No. 89 to an extent of Ac. 5.31 cents in Munagala village and that there was A dispute in respect of the above land between A.1 and the complainant and his family members and that when the A.1 with the connivance of the respondents 2 to 4 (Police Officials) herein tried to occupy the land belonging to the petitioner, they resisted his illegal acts and in that connection the complainant filed a case before the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad which was numbered as Case No. 2637 of 2005 and that to see that the complaint before the Human Rights Commission is withdrawn by the petitioner, A.1 gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent (SI of Police, Nandyal) stating that the petitioner and his family members forcibly took away Cholam crop from the disputed land and on the said complaint, a case in Cr.No. 25 of 2006 was registered against the petitioner and his family members and on 18.2.2006, after preparing false record, the respondents 2 to 4 went to the house of the petitioner and beat him and his brother, abused them in filthy language and when the respondents 2 to 4 were trying to take them to the police station, the mother of the complainant intervened then she was pushed away by respondent No.3 and that a complaint was lodged against the respondents before the D.I.G. Kurnool who forwarded the same to the Human Rights Commission and that on a private complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and took cognizance of the case against the respondents for the offences under Sections 506, 354, 355, 341, 177, 182, 211 and 323 IPC and issued process to the respondents. The respondents herein who are A.2 to A.4 filed a petition under Section 209 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate to delete the offence under Section 354 IPC on the ground that the allegations in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition by holding that since he has already took cognizance of the offence, it is not possible for him to review his order. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing their petition, the respondents 1 to 3 filed Crl.R.P. No. 58 of 2007 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The learned Sessions Judge upon considering the entire material on record arrived at the conclusion that the allegations in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC and allowed the petition and consequently ordered to delete the offence under Section 354 IPC. Against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the present petition is filed by the de facto complainant. I have gone through the averments in the complaint and also perused the sworn statement of the complainant. Except the allegation that the de facto complainant, his brother and his mother were beaten, abused and pushed away in public view, no other allegation was made against the respondents 1 to 3 to attract the offence under Section 354 IPC. The entire material on record undoubtedly does not indicate the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence under Section 354 IPC. To the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate while acting under Section 209 Cr.P.C. has no power to discharge or delete any offence and he has to simply commit the case to the Court of Sessions, it may be said that the job of a Magistrate while acting under Section 209 Cr.P.C. is not that of a Post Master. At least for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions is made out or not, the Magistrate can certainly examine the material available on record and if on such examination, he finds that there is absolutely no material indicating commission of offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, he is not obliged to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and he can delete the offence triable by Court of Sessions and can proceed with the trial. As already stated above, the learned Sessions Judge rightly arrived at the conclusion that the material on record does not indicate the involvements of the respondents in the commission of the offence under Section 354 IPC and he rightly ordered to delete the said offence. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and based on appreciation of the material available on record and it needs no interference in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 01.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2486 of 2008. ORDER: DT. 01.07.2010.