THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9957 OF 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is Accused No.10 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the summons issued by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool against him in C.F.R. No. 2239 of 2011 in P.R.C. No. 70 of 2011. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On the basis of the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent herein, a case in Crime No. 44 of 2010 was registered against the petitioner and some others, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C. While filing the charge sheet, the name of the petitioner was deleted by the investigating agency. The 1st respondent filed a protest petition in C.F.R. No. 2339 of 2010 in P.R.C. No. 70 of 2011 before the trial Court to include the petitioner herein as accused. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence, issued summons to the petitioner by adding him as Accused No.10 in the said P.R.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the committal Court has no power to add the petitioner as accused when the matter is to be tried by a Court of Sessions. He further submitted that the committal Court is only empowered to commit a case to the Court of Sessions, but it cannot add a person as accused by invoking the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in RANJIT SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ([1]). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. In Ranjit Singh’s case(cited supra), the Apex Court has held that the committal Court has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, while following the legal proposition enunciated by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the order passed by the trial Court in adding the petitioner as Accused No.10 and in issuing summons to him is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is quashed. At this stage, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the case of the 1st respondent should not be thrown out on the ground that the Magistrate has no such power to include a person as an accused. This Court is of the view that if the 1st respondent is aggrieved of the deletion of the name of the petitioner as accused, he is at liberty to file an application before the Sessions Court after examination of the witnesses or at the time of examination of witnesses for inclusion of the name of the petitioner as accused. Further, if any new material is placed before the Sessions Court, the 1st respondent can very well file an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to include the petitioner herein as an accused and upon filing of such petition, the learned Sessions Judge, who is conducting the trial is at liberty to decide the issue in accordance with law. The Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated :18th October, 2011 pnb [1] (1998) 7 SCC 149