HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1713 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the docket order dated 3.7.2010 passed in P.R.C.No.6 of 2010 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathyavedu, Chittoor District, taking cognizance of Crime No.16 of 2010 registered by Pichatur Police station against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 IPC. On the basis of the report given by one Parandla Subramanyam, the above said crime was registered. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., stating that the petitioners have committed the said offence. The Court below took cognizance of the said offence as per Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and as it is a matter to be tried exclusively by the Sessions Judge, it was numbered as PRC No.6 of 2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri Jwala, learned Senior Counsel submitted that on the basis of the facts, the Court below ought not have taken cognizance of the said offence against the petitioners, and according to him, the entire transaction between the parties is purely civil in nature and the Court below thoroughly erred in taking cognizance under section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. It is his further submission that on the facts, no offence is made out, despite the said fact the Court below took cognizance of the said offence against the petitioners. Heard. This Court is unable to appreciate the said submissions. The total submissions made by the learned Senior Civil are on facts, which may not be necessary for this Court at this juncture. The police after registration of the crime investigated into the matter and they filed a charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the Court below took cognizance of the same and numbered it as P.R.C.No.6 of 2010. When once a charge sheet is filed, this is the minimum requirement for the Court to do. Thereafter, there are so many steps, which are provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners have any grievance that the entire transaction is civil in nature and the facts do not make out any offence as alleged, it is always open for them to file an application as provided for under Section 227 Cr.P.C. In fact, it is only for the said purpose, the provision of law has been introduced. As and when a charge sheet is filed, the minimum requirement for the Court viz., Judicial First Class Magistrate, is to number it as pre-registration case when it is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. After numbering it, he commits the same to the Sessions Judge, where the Sessions Judge frames charges. At any time, before framing of the charges, the petitioner can invoke the provisions under section 227 Cr.P.C., pleading discharge and the Sessions Court upon consideration of the record, may pass appropriate orders. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that this revision is misconceived. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. It is needless to observe that as and when the present case i.e., PRC No.6 of 2010 is committed to the Sessions Court, the petitioners can avail remedies under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge and the Sessions Court will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. __________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Dated: 15.2.2011 Nn HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:1713 OF 2010 15.2.2011