HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRL.R.C. No. 2035 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner-Accused No.4 approached this Court to set aside the order dated 20.4.2011 passed in Crl.M.P.No. 1790 of 2011 in Crime No. 40 of 2010 of Mahila P.S. by the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, whereby he arrayed the petitioner as accused No.4 in the present case. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier, the petitioner approached the Court at the time of investigation of Crime No. 40 of 2010 of P.S. Mahila P.S., this Court passed an order directing the respondent-police to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner herein. Subsequent to the said order, the investigation agency completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet deleting the name of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a protest petition and after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate added him as accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when this Court directed the Investigation Officer to consider the materials and to file a report, the investigating agency after appraisal of the evidence deleted the name of the petitioner herein and without issuing notice to the petitioner herein, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the case erroneously. Heard the arguments and perused the record. Complainant is having every right to file an application over the final report filed by the police deleting the names of the persons mentioned in the complaint. On such filing, the Magistrate is at liberty to peruse the record and to add the petitioner as an accused. The order passed by this Court on the earlier occasion will not come in the way of the learned Magistrate to pass orders on hearing both parties. Further, there is no need to issue notice to the petitioner when the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused, when the protest petition is filed before the Magistrate. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the order under revision needs no interference. Accordingly, the criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 11.10.2011 CHV