HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4932 of 2011 ORDER: The present Criminal Petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is the de facto complainant in C.C. No. 327 of 2011 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The circumstances which insisted the petitioner to file the present petition are as follows: The petitioner preferred a complaint against three persons alleging commission of the offence under Section 498-A IPC and the same was registered as Crime No. 441 of 2010. The main grievance of the petitioner herein is, after completion of investigation, the respondent-police filed a final report arraying all the three persons as accused before the concerned Court. The learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, rejected the said charge sheet for want of some Xerox copies and for some other documents. On the basis of a request memo dated 9.2.2011 filed by the Investigating Officer, the charge sheet was returned. The said memo reads thus: “MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: It is respectfully submit that in the above crime I filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. It is further submitted that in the above case as per the evidence of L.W.1 the de facto complainant, the 1st accused shifted the family to Visakhapatnam. There they lead marital life for about 8 ½ years. But, we did not examine the house owner or the neighbors and also the prosecution has to examine other witnesses to establish the case against the accused. In the above reasons, I pray the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to return the charge sheet. Be pleased to consider.” After the 1st charge sheet is returned, the present charge sheet is filed against one person. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal Petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly raised the contention that once the charge sheet is filed, it is the duty of the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, either to take cognizance or reject the same. Since investigation agency filed charge sheet against all the three persons, without any reason, the Investigating Officer filed an application for return of the said charge sheet. After that, investigation agency deliberately deleted the names of other two persons, those who are arrayed as accused in the earlier charge sheet. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate should have issued notice to the de facto complainant in connection with the deletion of the names of other accused. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor, the Criminal Petition is disposed of with the following directions: The learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is directed to issue notice to the de facto complainant, who is the petitioner herein, regarding the deletion of names of two accused persons in the charge sheet. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner- de facto complainant is at liberty to file a protest petition to include the other two persons also as accused. The learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is at liberty to peruse the record and also follow the procedure either to include or reject the names of the two persons as accused in C.C. No. 327 of 2011 in accordance with law. If the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, takes cognizance against other two persons, the lower Court is directed to include the names of the said two persons also in the same C.C. No. 327 of 2011 and shall proceed with against all the three accused in the same C.C. and can dispose of the matter in accordance with law. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 2.12.2011 CHV