THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5069 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 BETWEEEN: Bhagwanth Reddy, S/o.Ram Reddy … Petitioner/A-6 AND The State of A.P , through the S.H.O. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5069 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 ORDER: In this petition, order dated 08.07.2009, passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 2009 in S.C.No.705 of 2007 is in question. The lower Court framed an additional charge under Section 354 IPC against A6/petitioner. Originally, the case was registered by the Police, on report given by PW1, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 324/149 IPC. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 425, 307, 341, 109 and 149 IPC against A1 to A7. The Magistrate at Narayanpet, took the case on file for the said offences against A1 to A7 and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Session. In the Assistant Sessions Court, all the prosecution witnesses were examined, except, the Investigating Officer. At that stage, the Additional Public Prosecutor in the lower Court filed the petition for framing additional charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC against A6. The main offence in this case is said to have taken place on 10.01.2006 in the house of PW1, who is father of PW6. At that time, PW6 was not in that house and she went there after hearing commotion. But, report could not be given to the police on the same day, as the accused are stated to have waylaid. Therefore, report was given by PW1 to the police on 11.01.2006. In that report given on 11.01.2006, there is no allegation of A6 outraging modesty of PW6 on 11.01.2006. 2. As per prosecution witnesses, A6 is stated to have gone to PW6’s house, which is a different house from that of PW1 and outraged her modesty on 11.01.2006 by placing his hand on her chest and by tearing her jacket. The offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is a different and distinct transaction, which took place on a different date and at different scene from the offence, which took place on 10.01.2006 in the house of PW1. SC.No.705 of 2007 is being tied for the offence, which took place on 10.01.2006 in PW1’s house. If PW6 is aggrieved by the incident, which is stated to have taken place on 11.01.2006, she should have figured as a complainant before the Police and should have pursued the matter for the said offence. Instead, an additional charge cannot be framed for a distinct and separate offence, which is not part of the same transaction, by invoking Section 216 Cr.P.C. I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the lower Court is unsustainable in law. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing charge under Section 354 IPC framed by the lower Court against the petitioner/A6 in S.C.No.705 of 2007. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 17.02.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5069 of 2009 DATED: 17.02.2011 ysk