IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1195 OF 2009 Between: Mrs. Nirmala kale and another .....PETITIONERS AND Ms. Anitha and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1195 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to expunge or delete the observations made in paragraph No.5 of the order, dated 29.12.2008, in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2008 in Crl.R.P.No.62 of 2008, on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioners herein filed a private complaint in S.R.No.7085 of 2007 before the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The learned Magistrate, vide order, dated 01.02.2008, rejected the complaint on the ground that no prima facie case is established. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Petition No.62 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, and filed therein Crl.MP.No.322 of 2008 seeking permission to amend the complaint. The learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, dated 29.12.2008, dismissed the said petition. Paragraph No.5 of the impugned order reads as follows: “The object of these petition clearly shows that the petitioners intend to build their case and in view of the allegations against them by respondent/proposed accused, the petitioners intend to prepare proper grounds by making amendments in this court. Such a conduct of the petitioners cannot be permitted, much so under criminal law. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved of any infringement and committing offence against them they should aver and allege only those of the material before the court, but they cannot build a civil case before a criminal court.” The revisional Court ought not have observed anything with regard to the alleged conduct of the petitioners, in view of the fact that the case is pending for adjudication. Therefore, the aforesaid observation of the revisional Court is expunged. 4. The second petitioner/party-in-person contended that in view of the decisions reported in Rahim Sheik v. Emperor[1], Nagen Kundu v. Emperor[2] and Hansaraj[3], there is inherent power on the criminal Court to amend the complaint. But this Court is unable to accept the same, in view of a decision of the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. Kali Singh[4], wherein it is held thus: “Code of Criminal Procedure does contain a provision for inherent powers, namely, Section 561-A (now S.482) which, however, confers these powers on the High Court and the High Court alone. Unlike Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, the subordinate criminal courts have no inherent powers.” From the above decision, the Sub-ordinate Courts have no inherent powers to pass any order, except as provided under the Code. 5. The party-in-person has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision, whereunder, he can file a petition to amend the complaint. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed only with regard to expunging of the observations made in paragraph No.5 of the order, dated 29.12.2008, in Crl.M.P.No.322 of 2008 in Crl.R.P.No.62 of 2008, on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 05, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.1195 OF 2009 August 05, 2010 [1] (1923) 50 Cal 872, 875 (Indian Law Reports) [2] (1934) 61 Cal 498, (Indian Law Reports) [3] (1942) Nag 333 [4] AIR 1977 SC 2432