S.319 CrPC | Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Man Arraigned As Additional Accused Despite Clean Chit By Police

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Sachin against arraigning him as accused No.2 in the case being tried for offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506, R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The bench held “The learned Sessions Judge did not bestow its attention to the charges that were framed by the Trial Court in pursuance of the charge sheet filed against Ashoka who is the first accused in the private complaint after thorough investigation. The Investigating agency did not find any material to invoke the offence under Section 420 IPC even though private complaint contents revealed that there was an element of cheating as against the petitioner is concerned.”

Complainant Mahesh filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court, which was referred to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Post investigation the police filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC as against one Ashok son of Shivachandra Agadi and dropped the case against the petitioner who was the second accused in the private complaint also dropped the charge under section 420 of IPC.

The complainant did not challenge the final report and also the offences invoked by the police in the charge sheet and the matter went for trial as the accused Ashok. The prosecution on 30.07.2019 under Section 319 Cr.P.C, stating that the petitioner herein has also been involved in cheating the complainant and therefore, he has to be arraigned as a second accused in the case.

The trial court heard the parties in detail and passed an order rejecting the application filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by order dated 12.10.2020. The prosecution challenged it before the sessions court which allowed the same. Following which the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner urged that in the entire charge sheet materials, there is no syllable that the petitioner has been responsible for cheating the complainant and the charge sheet is filed against Ashoka, for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. As such, the Magistrate has rightly appreciated the contents of the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the prosecution and rejected the application filed by the prosecution.

On going through the records the bench noted that private complaint contents no doubt reveals certain facts about the investigation being made and some financial transactions and drawing of money by the petitioner. However, the police after thorough investigation, after registering the case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, did not find any such material as is alleged in the private complaint, but instead found that Ashoka, who is the first accused in the private complaint has committed an offence under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and filed the charge sheet.

Following which it observed “The contents of the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., does not speak about the present petitioner for the charges that has been levelled against accused No.1 even though in the private complaint, few allegations are levelled against the petitioner which would attract the offence under Section 420 IPC.”

Then it held “Taking these aspects of the matter into consideration, learned Trial Magistrate rightly appreciated the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C.”

Further it said “Just because the complainant who is examined as PW-1 deposes before the Court while he was examining on behalf of the prosecution that present petition is also involved in cheating would not ipso-facto make out a case for the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to arraign the present petition as an additional accused in the case. More so, when there is no material that present petition is involved in an act which would attract the offence under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC.”

Allowing the petition the bench said “Suffice to say, when the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the material facts on record, whereby the rights of the petitioner has been infringed warranting this Court to interfere with the said order by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

Case Sachin And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201553 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

Date of Order: 08-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sachin M Mahajan for petitioner

Advocate Gururaj V Hasilkar for R1.

Advocate Veershetty B K for Advocate B K Patil for R2.