HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2552 OF 2010 Date:08.04.2010 Between: E.P.Jayarajan …..Petitioner And: The Inspector of Police, CBCID Special Team, Hyderabad, rep. By Inspector of Police, CBCID, Ongole, Prakasam District through its Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NO.2552 OF 2010 ORDER: The defacto-complainant/P.W-1 in Sessions Case No.383 of 1998 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole is the petitioner. In the Sessions Case only two accused persons namely Sasi and Dinesh are facing trial. T.P.Rajeevan, Biji and K.Sudhakaran are not facing trial. Committal of the case by the Magistrate was made to the Sessions Court in respect of Sasi and Dinesh only. 2) Previously during the course of trial, the prosecution took steps under Section 319 Cr.P.C to implead T.P.Rajeevan, K.Sudhakaran and M.V.Raghavan as accused persons in the Sessions Case and to proceed with trial as against them also. Those proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C ultimately ended in the Supreme Court and request of the prosecution and the defacto-complainant were negatived by the Supreme Court. 3) Now, the petitioner filed a petition in C.F.R. No.1 of 2010 before the trial Court on 04.01.2010 under Section 193 Cr.P.C praying the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence against those accused whose names have been mentioned in column No.2 of the charge sheet, by exercising its powers under Section 193 Cr.P.C. The petitioner also enclosed reported decisions in Tek Narayan Prasad Yadav V. State of Bihar[1], Vipin Kumar Agarwal V. State of U.P[2], Nisar V. State of U.P[3] along with the petition filed in the trial Court. The trial Court i.e., the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ongole returned the application on 07.01.2010 with endorsement that the petition may be filed in a proper Court for the relief sought in the petition. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition. When the lower Court had returned the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C with a ministerial endorsement, then the petitioner if not satisfied with the said endorsement of return on his petition, should have represented the petition before the lower Court itself and should have obtained a judicial order from the lower Court. This Court is of the opinion that rushing to this Court after ministerial return on his petition by the petitioner is inappropriate. Therefore, the petitioner has to represent the petition before the trial Court with proper endorsement, in which event the lower Court will have to hear and decide the petition on merits and pass necessary order on judicial side. 4) Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. April 8, 2009 KSH [1] (1999) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 356 [2] 1998 CriLJ 2327 [3] (1995)2 Supreme Court Cases 23