THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4953 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. D.Prasad, S/o.D.Subba Rao & 9 others … Accused/Petitioners AND 1. G.Uma, W/o.G.Yadaiah & another … Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.4957 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. D.Prasad, S/o.D.Subba Rao & 9 others … Accused/Petitioners AND 1. Y.Narasimha Murthy, S/o.Late Thammaiah Bhatt & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4953 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.4957 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: In Crl.P.No.4953 of 2009, the petitioners 1 to 10/A1 to A10 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 448, 342, 323, 509 IPC in CC.No.875 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In Crl.P.No.4957 of 2009, the petitioners 1 to 21/A1 to A19, A21 and A22 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 448 and 427 IPC in Cc.No.876 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. These two cases are the result of a demonstration in an agitation made by employees of AWARE group at its administrative office in Hyderabad alleging inter alia non-payment of their salaries etc. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that even though several cognizable offences are alleged in the complaints and even though the respective complaints sought for referring the matter to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate without doing so, took cognizance of offences after recording sworn statements of the respective complainants. There is no legal bar for the Magistrate to make enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. during which, sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses if any, are recorded and to take cognizance of the offences including cognizable offences. It is not incumbent upon the Magistrate to refer the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. even in case any cognizable offences are alleged to have been committed by the accused. Both the options are open to the Magistrate to the effect that he may refer the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C or to make enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offences. 2. It is contended that in CC.No.875 of 2009, the lower Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 509 IPC even as against lady accused. Since it was a case relating to several offences alleged against both male as well as female accused including the one under Section 509 IPC, the lower Court took the case on file for all the above offences against all the accused. That does not mean that the lower Court is going to commit female accused for the offence under Section 509 IPC. As per allegations in that case, the complainant, who is working as Aya, was prevented from leaving the office by the accused when she intended to go out of the office after office hours at 5:30PM. It is alleged that she was pushed back into the office by the accused and was not allowed to go out of the office till late in the night. When she was pushed, it is alleged that she fell down and suffered injuries. 3. It is contended that in the sworn statement, the complainant in CC.NO.875 of 2009 named only four of the accused i.e. A1, A5, A8 and A9. She says that names of other persons were given by another person working in the same office by name Kotagiri. The complainant can identify all the accused during trial in the lower Court. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the lower Court taking cognizance of the case against all the accused. 4. It is contended that one Bhagyavathi, who is no more even by the date of offence was named in the complaints and that this shows indiscriminate lodging of complaints by the respective complainants. It is a matter for appreciation by the lower Court. Death of one of the accused may not clothe the other accused with a right to claim relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. It is contended that all the accused belong to several places in Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram, Srikakulam and Khammam Districts and that they include family persons also and that all of them names indiscriminately in the complaints. According to the complainants, all of them participated in the agitation staged against ‘AWARE’ administration resulting in these offences. Since the accused have to come to Hyderabad for attending adjournments of the cases from different places, I propose to dispense with their appearance in the lower Court, Except A1. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in these two cases pending in the lower Court. 6. In the result both the petitions are dismissed. However, the lower Court is directed to dispense with personal attendance of the petitioners/accused except A1, on all the dates of adjournment of the cases except on the dates of preliminary examination, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and date of delivery of judgment. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 18.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4953 of 2009 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.4957 of 2009 DATED: 18.02.2011 ysk