Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1418 (AP)

K. Srinivasulu v. State Of A. P.

2001-11-08

T.CH.SURYA RAO

body2001
T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners assail the order dated 6-8-2001 passed by the learned VII Additional munsif Magistrate, Guntur in Crl. M. P. No. 1594 of 2001 in C. CN. o. 255 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 7 in the said case filed by the Sub-Inspector of police, Pattabhipuram Law and Order P. S. on 19-8-2000. On a report lodged by the de facto-complainant viz. , the wife of the first petitioner, a crime has been registered against them and eventually charge-sheet was filed before the Court. Pursuant to the summons issued by the Court, all the accused appeared before that Court. They filed Crl. M. P. No. 1594 of 2001 under Section 239 Cr. P. C. requesting the Court to discharge them. It appears that they also filed an application in crl. M. P. No. 1595 of 2001 for permitting one of them to represent the others before the court during the course of trial. The learned magistrate dismissed both the applications after hearing either side. As aforesaid, petitioners are now assailing the impugned order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 1594 of 2001. ( 3 ) IN the impugned order, the learned magistrate observed that at that stage what the Court obliged to see was the prima facie case that could be gathered from out of the averments made in the FIR. , charge-sheet or other documents filed or annexed to the charge-sheet. After having thus perused the necessary documents filed by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners and in that view of the matter he dismissed the petition. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. In the statement of the de facfo-complainant as l. W. 1, she categorically stated about the mental harassment from all the petitioners by demanding additional dowry. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said statement has been supported by the statement of L. W. 2, the father of the de facfo-complainant. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in both the statements is not subject matter of investigation in this case by this Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the said statement has been supported by the statement of L. W. 2, the father of the de facfo-complainant. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in both the statements is not subject matter of investigation in this case by this Court. At the stage of framing the charge, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, what is germane for consideration is the existence of prima facie case and at that stage sifting of evidence is not expected of. Probabilities also may not weigh. Relying upon the probabilities, the Court is not expected to discharge the petitioner at the threshold. The law of probabilities treated by the learned magistrate is correct. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel that the other petitioners except A-l reside at distant places and they never resided together along with A-l and the defacto-complainant, has been repeated by the Court below. This probability cannot be, at this stage, considered by the trial Court. After considering the evidence given by witnesses on both sides, while appreciating their evidence, the Court may take these probabilities into consideration by ascertaining the truth or testing the credibility of the witnesses. The Court, at the stage of framing charge should proceed on the face value of the statements made by the witnesses or averments contained in other documents annexed to the charge-sheet. If those allegations made inter alia in those documents remain uncontroverted, whether they made out any prima facie case or not has to be discerned. ( 6 ) AFTER having perused the statements, I see no illegality or irregularity committed by the Court below in having passed the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order is not correct, legal and proper. The learned Magistrate ought to have considered the other application by permitting one of the accused to represent the others having regard to the fact that some of them are residing at distant places. However, the said order has not been assailed before me so that a positive direction could be given. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the criminal revision case is dismissed at the threshold.