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

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order of the sessions court allowing an application made by the prosecution under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, permitting it to arraign a person as accused whom the police had earlier given clean chit in investigation. 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. 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.