THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8399 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prathipadu, East Godavari district to take cognizance of Section 307 IPC along with Sections 147, 148, 324, 447, 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC already taken cognizance of in C.C.No.59 of 2008 on his file and register as preliminary registered case and take consequential measures. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and the respondents 2 to 8 are A1 to A7 in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the calendar case. The prosecution case is as follows: The defacto complainant and his family members own an extent of Ac.6-27 cents of wet land in Sy.No.255/1 to 258/2 of Utharakanchi village, Prathipadu mandal, which is their ancestral property. In the year 2005, A1 to A3 issued a legal notice to the defacto complainant demanding him to get their wet land registered under the guise of an alleged agreement of sale in favour of A1 to A3. Hence, the defacto complainant filed suit O.S.No.122 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu against A1 to A3 and obtained permanent injunction in his favour. In view of that, the accused bore grudge against the defacto complainant and his family members and on 1.7.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. all the accused along with their men armed with weapons like knives, sticks and spears trespassed into the land of the defacto complainant and attacked him and others with an intention to kill them and abused them in filthy and vulgar language and A1 to A3 hacked the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint. During the course of investigation, the Station House Officer, Prathipadu filed charge sheet against the A1 to A7 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 447 and 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC and at the stage of committal to the court of Sessions, the trial Court took cognizance of the matter under Sections 324, 447, 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC excluding the offence punishable under Section 307 on the ground that the injuries were simple in nature and there was a civil dispute between the parties. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that the allegations made clearly attract the provisions of Section 307 IPC and the learned Magistrate committed mistake in not taking cognizance of the same. It is contended on behalf of A1 to A7 that on the basis of the observations by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4419 of 2008, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the case under Section 307 IPC. It is pertinent to note there that if Section 307 IPC is included, the learned Magistrate has to give preliminary registered case number. The learned Magistrate has got discretion to examine the matter and come to right conclusion in that context before taking necessary further steps independently or without being influenced by any other aspects. Therefore, the Magistrate is directed to hear both the parties and pass necessary orders with regards to the application of Section 307 IPC basing on the material available, without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 29-12-2012 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8399 of 2009 29.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8399 of 2009 Date: 29.12.2011 Between: Ramisetti Suryanarayana .. Petitioner/Defacto complainant And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents