HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 OF 2008 DATE: 31-03-2011 BETWEEN: A. Satyanarayana. - - - Petitioner/De- facto complainant. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And fifteen others. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6285 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-de-facto complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.113 of 2006, dated 07-06- 2007, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, so far as non consideration of adding of A-16 to A-21 out of A-1 to A-21 proposed to be added in C.C. No.37 of 1998 filing Crl.M.P. No.1485 of 2001 on the file of the Court of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad is concerned. 2. The said Crl.M.P. No.1485 of 2001 was dismissed by the lower Court on 19-04-2005. Thereafter, the Criminal Revision Petition No.113 of 2006 was filed by the de-facto complainant on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against the order made in Crl.M.P. No.1485 of 2001 where as it was allowed so far as adding of the accused 1 to 15 are concerned in the case. Subsequently a Review Petition was filed under Section 362 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to review the order delivered in the Criminal Revision Petition No.113 of 2006 but it was dismissed on 06-06-2008 on the ground that the same Court could not go behind the order passed earlier and no valid reasons were found to review the order. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Petition has been filed. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-de-facto complainant that by virtue of the orders passed in Crl.M.P. No.1485 of 2001 dismissing the plea to add all the accused the Metropolitan Sessions Judge should have examined the question of adding all the accused but he only considered the question of adding the accused 1 to 15 therein which therefore is not correct. It is also his contention that the case is at the preliminary stage of ascertaining whether all the accused should be proceeded with under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and therefore all of them need not be shown in the cause title given in the petition. 4. When Crl.M.P. No.1485 of 2001 was filed for the purpose of adding all the accused 1 to 21 and against the orders of dismissal delivered therein the Criminal Revision Petition was filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, the same authority should have examined the question of adding the proposed accused 16 to 21 along with other accused also. Therefore, the order passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, without considering the question of adding the accused 16 to 21 in the Calendar case under those circumstances is an erroneous omission. Further, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, could not have considered the question of reviewing the order under Section 362 Cr.P.C. as it does not provide any authority to him to do so. However, by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C which confers inherent powers upon this Court necessary amendments can be ordered. 5. Therefore, it is to be given a direction to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to consider the question of adding the proposed accused 16 to 21 also in the Calendar Case under the revisional powers in the light of the over all circumstances of the case. In the result the criminal Petition is disposed of quashing the order passed in the review petition and further giving direction to the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, to consider the question of adding the accused 16 to 21 in the Calendar Case and pass necessary orders. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 31-03-2011. Dsh.