(1.) The Sub-Inspector of police, Simhadripurm, filed a charge-sheet against twelve accused for offences punishable under sections 147, 147, 324, 523, 326, 367 and 149, Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Pulivendla. The latter took it on file as P.R.G. No. 5 of 1961, framed charges under sections 147, 324, 325, 326 read with 149 and 367 against A-1, A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-11, and under sections 148, 324, 325 and 326 read with 149 and 357 against A-2, A-5, A-8 and A-12 and committed them to take their trial in the Court of Session, Guddapah Division. Thereupon the accused felt aggrieved with that order and filed this petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the order of committal.
(2.) In the present case the charge under section 367, Indian Penal Code, against the accused is that they dragged the complaint from one place to another so that he may be subject to grievous hurt. It is also the case of the prosecution that the accused caused grievous hurt which is the subject of charges under sections 325 and 326 Indian Penal Code. It is beyond doubt or dispute that, of all the charges framed against accused, the only charges which is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions is the charge under section 367 Indian Panel Code and that all the other charges under sections 325, and 326 Indian Penal Code, are triable by First Class Magistrate.
(3.) The contention of Sri A. Bhujanga Rao for the petitioners is that in view of the fact that the accused are alleged to have committed offences under sections 325 and 326, Indian Penal Code none of them can be charged with offence under section 367 Indian Penal Code. The reason be urges is that section 367, Indian Penal Code is only an offence of being kidnapped or abducted for the purpose of causing grievous hurt, so far as this case is concerned, and that grievous hurt, has actually been caused according to the prosecution. Section 367, Indian Penal Code, runs thus :