Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Kali Raju Naidu vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13572
CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15778 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI M. KALI RAJU NAIDU
S/O LATE B.S.MARAPPA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, 11TH C CROSS,
NEAR FOOD OFFICE,
KODANADRAMAPURAM,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRA B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SANJEEVINI J PEENYA POLICE STATION, PEENYA,
KARISHETTY
BENGALURU.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX.
2. G.PUTTAHANUMAKKA,
W/O G.V.GANGANAGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING NO.136,
2ND BLOCK, 10TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13572
CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.BHAVANA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S FILED 528 BNSS OF 2023 (U/S
482 OF CR.PC) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
17.06.2025 IN C.C.NO.27258/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE HON'BLE XXXI ADDL.ACJM COURT, BENGALURU
ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 17-06-2025, which allows an application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Facts in brief germane are as follows:
2.1. The 2nd respondent registers a complaint on 29-05-2015, in which the petitioner was also drawn as an -3- NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR accused. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.501 of 2015. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. While filing the charge sheet, the name of the petitioner gets dropped. Further proceedings go on before the concerned Court. The prosecution noticing the fact the name of the petitioner could not have been dropped while filing the charge sheet, prefers an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to bring the petitioner back into the web of proceedings.
2.2. A notice is issued by the concerned Court to the petitioner as to why he should not be brought back into the web of proceedings. The petitioner replies to the said notice. On consideration of the reply, the concerned Court passes an order permitting the petitioner to be brought in as an accused, owing to the law and the evidence that was found at the time when the trial was on. The petitioner, on allowing of the application, is before the Court in the subject petition, calling in question the said order.
3. Heard Sri. Ravindra B.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Bhavana G.K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a purchaser from the hands of K. Nithyananda Swamy, the accused no.1 and has nothing to do with the GPA executed in the year 1992 in favour of accused No.1 by one B.M.Rajanna. The petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2015 from the hands of the said K. Nithyananda Swamy. The learned counsel submits that Section 319 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to misuse or abuse the position, by bringing in all those who had been dropped, without any rhyme or reason. He would seek quashment of the order. He would add the circumstance of pendency of a civil suit in O.S.No.903 of 2015 in which the present petitioner is also a defendant before the concerned Court. On all these scores, the learned counsel seeks quashment of the order which brings him back into the web of crime.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the complaint was filed not only against Nithyananda Swamy. The complaint of forgery, fraud, cheating and conspiracy was against both the accused No.1 and the present petitioner. The police conduct investigation and drop the name of the present petitioner from the array of accused and draw only the accused No.1 into the web of proceeding. The trial goes on. Owing to the evidence of PW1, the prosecution files an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
seeking to bring in the petitioner, as accused no.2 in the trial, which is rightly allowed by the concerned Court and needs no interference.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. comes to be filed by the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR complainant seeking to draw the accused/petitioner to the proceedings. The application reads as follows:
" ೌರ ಾ ತ 31 ೇ ಎ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಾ ಾಲಯ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
. . ನಂ.27258/2018
ಾ ದು ಾರರು : !ಾಜ ದ ಪರ ಾ$ %ೕಣ '(ೕಸರು
*ರುದ+
ಆ!ೋ%ತರು : .ಾ ನಂ ಾ ಮತು0 ಇತರರು
2ಾರ3ೕಯ ದಂಡ ಪ565 ಾ ಸಂ7.ೆ ಕಲಂ 319ರ9 ಆ:;ೕಜ ೆ ಪರ ಸ(<ಸು30ರುವ
ಸ(< >ೊಳ?@30ರುವ ಅB
ಅ:ಯಜ ೆಯ ಪರ ಾ$ ಈ >ೆಳಕಂಡಂ.ೆ Dಾ5E ಸFಾ$ ೆ.
ಈ GೕಲHಂಡ IಕದJGಯನುK ಾ ದು ಾರು GೕFಾHL ದ ಆ!ೋ%ಗಳ *ರುದ+ 2ಾ.zÀA.¸ÀA.ಯ ಕಲಂ:419, 120-M, 420 !ೆ/* 34 ಐ% Oೕ.ಾ ೋPಾ!ೋಪQೆ ಪRS ಸ(< ದುJ, ಆ!ೋ% ಾದ >ಾT!ಾಜ MU M,ಎV WಾರಪX 53 ವಷ , ಾಸ ನಂ:
24/25 11 ೇ >ಾ5V >ೋದಂಡ!ಾಮಪZರ,ಮFೆ<ೕಶ ರಂ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು-3 ರವರನುK ತ \ಾ >ಾಲದ(< ]ಾ^ಾ_`ಾರ ಲಭ *ಲ< ೆ ಇರುವZದOಂದ ತ \ಾb>ಾOಗಳ? ಇವರನುK ೋPಾ!ೋಪQಾ ಪRScಂದ >ೈMಟು5ತ0 ೆ, ಈ ಪ5ಕರಣವZ fಾgೕನು ರ7ತ, ಸಂhೆಯ iಾಗೂ ಾ!ೆಂj IಕದJG ಾ$ರುತ0 ೆ, ಆ ಪ5ಕರಣ ಾ$ ಈ ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯವZ ಆ!ೋ%ಗಳ *ರುದ+ ಆ!ೋಪQೆವ!ೆ ಅ:;ೕಜ ೆ ಪರ ಾlತ ]ಾm ಾರ!ಾದ nಾ,]ಾ-1 (Dಾ5]ಾ-1) ಪZಟS ಹನುಮಕH ರವರ ]ಾm *nಾರQೆ WಾಡFಾ$ರುತ0 ೆ ಸದO ]ಾm ಾರರು ಘಟ ೆ ೆ ಪpರಕ ಾ$ ]ಾq_ ನು9lರು.ಾ0!ೆ.
Dಾ5]ಾ.1 ರವರು ತಮr ]ಾq_ದ(< Iೕಸದ(< ಪ5ಮುಖ Dಾತ5 ವ7 ದ ವ 60 ಎ-2 >ಾT!ಾಜ *ರುದ+ ಸಹ ಾನು 'ೕ(V tಾQೆಯ(< ದೂರು ಾಖ( ೆJ. ಆ ವ 60 ಸಹ ನನ ೆ Iೕಸ Wಾ9ದುJ ಆತನುK ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ iಾಜರುಪ9ಸಲು ಮತು0 ಆತ ಗು ಸಹ u^ೆ ೕಡುವಂ.ೆ >ೋO>ೊಳ?@.ೆ0ೕ ೆ. ಎಂದು ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ ನು9lರು.ಾ0!ೆ.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR ತ \ಾb>ಾO ೋPಾ!ೋಪQಾ ಪತ5ದ(< ]ಾಕಷುS ]ಾ^ಾ_`ಾರ ಲಭ *ಲ< ೆಂಬ >ಾರಣlಂದ >ೈMRSರುವ ಆ!ೋ% ಾದ ಎ-2 >ಾT!ಾಜ ರವರು ಈ ಕೃತ ದ(< 2ಾ$ ಾ$ ಆ!ೋಪ ೆಸ$ ಾJ!ೆಂದು Dಾ5]ಾ 1 ರವರವZ ]ಾq_lಂದ ೋಚOಸುತ0 ೆ.
ೋPಾ!ೋಪಣ ಪRSಯ(< ಆ!ೋ%ತ!ಾ$ ]ೇOಸlದJರೂ ಸಹ ' ಾ ಾಲಯದ(< *nಾರQಾ ಹಂತದ(< ]ಾm ಾರರು (2ಾlತರು) ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ iಾಜರು ಪ9ಸದ ]ಾq_ದ ಆ`ಾರದ GೕFೆ ಾ ಾಲಯವZ *nಾರQೆಯ ಾವZ ೇ ಹಂತದ(< ]ಾq_`ಾರವZ ಲಭ ಾ$ ೆyಂದು ಅ:Dಾ5c ದ(< >ೈ MRSರುವ ಆ!ೋ%ಯನುK ಆ!ೋ% ಾ$ ]ೇO >ೊಂಡು ಅb*nಾರQೆ Wಾಡ ೇ>ಾ$ರುತ0 ೆಂದು ಈ >ೆಳಕಂಡ ಪ5ಕರಣಗಳ(< Wಾನ ಸzೕ ಚ{ ಾ ಾಲಯ ಅಲiಾ ಾ| ಮತು0 ಾಂ ೆ ಉಚ~ ಾ ಾಲಯಗಳ? ಅ:Dಾ5ಯ ಪRSರುತ0 ೆ.
1. 2015 >ೆ•ಂV 50 (ಸzೕ ಚ{ ಾ ಾಲಯ)
2. 2005 65gನ€ Fಾ ಜನ € 2322 (ಅಲiಾ ಾ| ಉಚ~ ಾ ಾಲಯ)
3. 2008 65gನ€ Fಾ ಜನ € 1123 ( ಾಂ ೆ ಉಚ~ ಾ ಾಲಯ) ಈ GೕಲHಂಡ 3ೕಪZ ಗಳನುK Wಾನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಅವ ಾಹ ೆ ಾ$ ಅ:;ೕಜ ೆ ಪರ ಈ ಕೂದ ಸ(<ಸFಾ$ ೆ.
>ಾನೂನು ಸಮrತ ಾದ ಅb*nಾರQೆ ೆ ಮತು0 ಾ ಯ ಸಮrತ ಾದ 3ೕWಾ ನ>ೆH ಬರಲು ೋPಾ!ೋಪQಾ ಪRSಯ(< >ೈ MRSರುವ >ಾT!ಾಜ ರವರನುK ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ iಾಜರು ಪ9 >ೊಂಡು *nಾರQೆ ನ•ೆಸುವZದು ಅ.ಾ ವಶ ಕ ಾ$ರುತ0 ೆ.
ಆದುದOಂದ ೋPಾ!ೋಪQಾ ಪತ5ದ(< >ಾT!ಾಜ ಅವರನುK ಈ ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ iಾಜ!ಾ$ *nಾರQೆ ಎದುOಸಲು ಸಮU‚ iೊರ9ಸ ೇ>ೆಂದು ಅ:;ೕಜ ೆಯ ಪರ ಈ ಘನ ಾ ಾಲಯದ(< Dಾ5E >ೊಳ@Fಾ$ ೆ.
ಸƒಳ: ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಸ7/-19/02/24
l ಾಂಕ19/02/2024 7Oಯ ಸiಾಯಕ ಸ>ಾ O ಅ:;ೕಜಕರು,
31 ೇ ಎ. .ಎಂ.ಎಂ. ಾ ಾಲಯ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು."
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:13572
CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025
HC-KAR
Objections are filed by the petitioner to the said application.
The objections read as follows:
"IN THE COURT OF THE 31 ACMM AT BENGALURU C.C.NO.27258/2018 Between:
Peenya.P.S Complainant
And,
Nithyananda & others Accused
Statement of Objections by Proposed Accused Kaliraju to the application filed by Smt.G.Puttahanumakka under sec 319 of Crpc.
1. It is submitted that application is not maintainable either under law or facts of the case.
2. It is submitted that complainant has filed false complaint against the proposed accused for a offence under 419, 120B. and 420 of IPC contending that proposed accused is involved in the crime alleged by the complainant before the jurisdictional police.
3. It is submitted that the police at first instance filed an FIR against the proposed accused for offence under sec 420 of IPC. After investigation the police has arrived to conclusion that proposed accused is a bonefide purchaser from the owner and he has purchased property from the lawful owner for a valuable sale consideration and he was put in possession of the property. in entire transaction there was a no involvement of at proposed accused in the crime alleged by the complainant.
4. It is submitted that the complainant with malafide intention and to harass the proposed accused has -9- NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR file the application to include proposed accused as one of the accused in the case.
5. It is submitted that the complainant already file civil suit in O.S.No.903/2015 for relief of Declaration and injection and same is pending consideration before the Hon'ble court. As the matter is pending consideration before the competent civil court question of invoking criminal jurisdiction is nothing but abuse of process of law.
6. It is submitted that there was no material to include proposed accused as a party in the case. Wherefore it is most respectfully prays that be please to reject the application in the interest of justice and equity."
Sd/-
Bengaluru, Advocate for proposed
Accused
Date: 03/08/2024"
On consideration of both, the application and the objections, the concerned Court passes the following order:
"17-06-2025 Orders on application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
By this application, the learned Sr. APP has sought for impleading the left out accused No.2 Kaliraja also as accused, and issue summons to him, as the complainant has deposed in her evidence about the involvement of said person also in the alleged offences. In the application, the learned Sr.APP has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2015 Crimes 50, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 2322 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 2008 Criminal Law Journal 1123.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. On the other hand, the proposed person appeared through his counsel and filed objections contending that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. That the police at first instance filed FIR against him and after investigation arrived to conclusion that there is no involvement of proposed accused in the crime. That the complainant with malafide intention and to harass him has come up with this application. That the complainant has already filed civil suit in OS No.903/2015 for the relief of declaration and injunction, which is pending for consideration and as such the question of invoking criminal jurisdiction is nothing but abuse of process of law. That there is no material to include the proposed accused as party in this case. Hence prayed to reject the application, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard arguments.
4. The learned counsel for proposed accused has vehemently argued that the proposed accused is purchaser of property. The complainant has already approached the civil court to ascertain her right. That the criminal court cannot decide the validity of GPA and Sale Deed. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for proposed accused has produced the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and our own Hon'ble High Court;
1) (2010) (1) SCC 250
2) (2014) 3 SCC 92
3) 2024(4) Kar. L.R. 241
5. Per contra, the learned Sr.APP submitted that the name of proposed accused is very well mentioned in the complaint and FIR. But in the charge sheet, his name is removed. That the complainant in her evidence has also spoken about the involvement of proposed accused in the alleged offences. In support of her arguments, the learned Sr.APP produced the following decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court;
1) Criminal Appeal No.978 of 2022 - Jitendra Nath Mishra V/s State of U.P. & Anr.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
2) CS (OS) 441/2020 - Vijay Kumar Nagpal V/s Parveen Kumar Nagpal
6. Section 319 Cr.P.C. deals with power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. It is to be noted here that I.O. has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 419, 120(B) and 420 r/w 34 IPC, by making note in column No.2 of charge sheet that as the allegations against accused No.2 were dis-proved during investigation, he has been dropped and cited as witness.
7. This application is filed by the learned Sr. APP for impleadment of left out accused No.2 also as accused, on the ground that complainant has deposed in her evidence about the involvement of said person also in the alleged offence.
8. I have carefully gone through the complaint averments. In the complaint, the complainant has made allegations that;
.......K.Nithyananda Swamy and Kali Raju are fully aware that they have no right or interest over my property. They have forged signatures and fabricated documents to illegally acquire my property ......
.......kindly request you to take cognizance of my complaint against (i)K.Nithyananda Swamy, son of Krishnamurthy;
(ii) Kali Raju, son of Late Marappa Naidu......
......fear that K.Nithyananda Swami, Kali Raju and/or their henchmen ......
9. Further in the evidence of complainant got adduced by prosecution in this case, the complainant has spoken about the involvement of proposed accused also in the alleged commission of offences. The evidence of PW1 is quoted verbatim as under;
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR ..........1 ೇ ಆ!ೋ% ತನ ೆ !ಾಜಣ† ಅವರು B%ಎ ಬ!ೆದು>ೊRS ಾJ!ೆ ಅನುKವಂತಹ ಾಖFೆ ಅನುK ಸೃ‡S ಅದರ ಆ`ಾರದ GೕFೆ >ಾT!ಾಜು ಅವO ೆ ]ೈಟನುK Wಾ!ಾಟ Wಾ9ದJರು. ಾನು ಒಬ‰ ವಯ]ಾ‚ದ ಮ7Šೆ ಇದುJ ನನK ಆ 0ಯನುK ಕಬTಸ ೇಕು ಅನುKವ ಉ ೆJೕಶlಂದ 1 ೇ ಆ!ೋ% ಮತು0 >ಾT!ಾಜು ಅವರು ]ೇO ಆ Oೕ3 ಸಂಚು ರೂ% ದJರು ಎಂದು ೊ.ಾ0cತು.........
.........>ಾT!ಾ‹ ಎನುKವರ *ರುದ+ ಸಹ ಾನು ದೂರು ಾಖ( ದುJ ಅವರು ಸಹ ಾ ಾಲಯ>ೆH ಬರ ೇಕು.........
10. The allegations in complaint and the version of PW1 stated supra would clearly show the involvement of left out accused No.2 also in the alleged offences. As such the prosecution has come up with this application to implead him also as one of the accused.
11. At this point of time, this court feels that the version of PW1 in chief examination without cross-examination can be considered for impleadment of the proposed person also as one of the accused person. In this regard, the decision reported in 2014(1) Crimes 133 SC can be relied upon, wherein it is observed that-
(q) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses - Is evidence, though rebuttable - Such evidence prima-facie necessitating bringing other person to trial - Can be basis for proceeding u/s 319 - Not necessary to wait till cross-examination is over (Paras 83 to 85)
83................All that is required for the exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that, it must appear to the court that some other person also who is not facing the trial may also have been involved in the offence. The pre-requisite for the exercise of this power is similar to the prima facie view which the magistrate must come to in order to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, no straight-jacket formula can and should be laid with respect to conditions precedent for arriving at such an opinion and, if the Magistrate/Court is convinced even on the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR basis of evidence appearing in Examination-in- Chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and can proceed against such other person(s). It is essential to note that the Section also uses the words 'such person could be tried' instead of should be tried. Hence, what is required is not to have a mini-trial at this stage by having examination and cross-examination and thereafter rendering a decision on the overt act of such person sought to be added. In fact, it is this mini- trial that would affect the right of the person sought to be arraigned as an accused rather than not having any cross-examination at all, for in light of sub-section 4 of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the person would be entitled to a fresh trial where he would have all the rights including the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and examine defence witnesses and advance his arguments upon the same. Therefore, even on the basis of Examination-in-Chief, the Court or the Magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the court is satisfied that the evidence appearing against such person is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such persons to face trial. In fact, Examination-in-Chief untested by cross-examination, undoubtedly in itself is an evidence.
84.Further, in our opinion, there does not seem to be any logic behind waiting till the cross- examination of the witness is over. It is to be kept in mind that at the time of exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the person sought to be arraigned as an accused, is in no way participating in the trial. Even if the cross- examination is to be taken into consideration, the person sought to be arraigned as an accused cannot cross examine the witness(s) prior to passing of an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as such a procedure is not contemplated by the Cr.P.C. Secondly, invariably the State would not oppose or object to naming of more persons as an accused as it would only help the prosecution in completing the chain of evidence, unless the witness(s) is obliterating the role of persons already facing trial. More so, Section 299 Cr.P.C. enables the court to record evidence in absence of the accused in the circumstances mentioned therein.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
85.Thus, in view of the above, we hold that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at the stage of completion of examination in chief and court does not need to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination for it is the satisfaction of the court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the court, in respect of complicity of some other person(s), not facing the trial in the offence ...................
Further, it is observed that-
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 - Person to be proceeded against - Necessarily not an accused already facing trial, either a person named in Column 2 of the charge sheet or a person whose name has been disclosed in any material before the court but not investigated, and a person whose complicity may be indicated and connected with the commission of the offence (Para 15)
15. Section 319 Cr.P.C. allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it. Thus, the person against whom summons are issued in exercise of such powers, has to necessarily not be an accused already facing trial. He can either be a person named in Column 2 of the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. or a person whose name has been disclosed in any material before the court that is to be considered for the purpose of trying the offence, but not investigated. He has to be a person whose complicity may be indicated and connected with the commission of the offence......................
12. Hence, as observed by their Lordships in the decision cited supra, the chief examination evidence prima facie necessitating bringing other person to trial can be basis for proceeding under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and not necessary to wait till cross-examination is over. Further, the person to be proceeded against, necessarily not an accused already facing trial, either a person named in column 2 of the charge sheet or a person whose name has been disclosed in any material before the court but not investigated, and a person whose complicity may be
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR indicated and connected with the commission of the offence.
13. Here in this case, there are allegations in complaint regarding the involvement of proposed accused. Further there is prima-facie chief examination evidence of complainant in respect of the involvement of proposed accused also in the commission of alleged offences. The name of proposed person is shown at column No.2 of charge sheet, and the name of above proposed person is disclosed by complainant, while deposing evidence before the court that he is also involved in the commission of offences.
14. It appears that the I.O. has not recorded the further statement of complainant regarding non- involvement of proposed accused, in the alleged commission of offences. It is very pertinent to note here that in the further statement of complainant dated 14-06-2025, she has clearly stated that-
......... .ಾ ನಂದ]ಾ g iಾಗೂ ಕT!ಾಜು ಎಂಬುವರುಗಳ? ನಕ( ಾಖFಾ3ಗಳನುK ಸೃ‡S >ೊಂಡು, Œೕಜ O ಸ7 Wಾ9>ೊಂಡು ನಮ ೆ ೊ30ಲ<ದಂ.ೆ ಾಸನಪZರ ಸ• OBಸSŽ ಕ•ೇOಯ(< OBಸSŽ Wಾ9>ೊಂಡು ನಮ ೆ Iೕಸ Wಾ9ರು.ಾ0!ೆ......
But the I.O. has left out proposed accused from the charge sheet, for the reasons best known to him.
15. The principles laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for proposed accused supra is not in dispute. But with great respect, this court is of the considered opinion that the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
16. So to sum up, after carefully going through the averments of application coupled complaint averments, chief evidence of complainant, further statement of complainant and the principles laid down in the decision cited by this court supra, this court is of the considered view that there are prima-
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR facie reasons and material to proceed against the proposed person also, by way of impleading him as one of the accused in this case. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Application filed by learned Sr.APP under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading the proposed accused Kaliraj is hereby allowed and he is impleaded as accused and arraigned as accused No-2.
Issue summons to accused No-2 returnable by 19/7/25.
Sd/-
17/6/25 XXXI A.C.J.M., Bengaluru City."
(Emphasis added) The concerned Court in the aforesaid order observes that, the complaint and the chief examination of the complainant, shows the involvement of the petitioner - proposed accused in the commission of the alleged offences. The name of the petitioner is also seen at column No.2 of the charge sheet. Additionally, the concerned Court also observes that despite the further statement of the complainant regarding the involvement of the petitioner, the investigating officer left the petitioner from the charge sheet without any reason. Therefore, the issue now
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR would be, whether the order suffers from want of tenability or otherwise?
8. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.--(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then--
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. permits the prosecution or any person to file an application seeking to draw an accused, for the reasons indicated therein. The concerned Court, by the aforesaid order, on rendering reasons which are cogent and coherent, has brought the petitioner back to the web of proceedings.
9. The interpretation of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. or its purport need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
9.1. In OMI v. STATE OF M.P.1 the Apex Court holds that even an accused who was dropped by the police in the charge sheet can be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.. The Apex Court observes as follows:
"........ ......... .........
7. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial court summoning them to face the trial preferred criminal revision application before the High Court. The High Court rejected [OMI v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 9372] the revision application and thereby affirmed the order passed by the trial court summoning the petitioners in exercise of its powers under Section 319CrPC.
1(2025) 2 SCC 621
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioners are here before this Court with the present petition.
9. We have heard Mr Anil Kaushik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
10. In Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 608 : (2023) 2 SCC (Cri) 625] while this Court has approved of relying upon deposition which has not suffered cross-examination for the purpose of invoking Section 319CrPC, it is relevant to note the standards which have been fixed by this Court for invoking the power under Section 319CrPC. The statement of law in this regard is contained in paras 105 and 106, respectively, of Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] : (SCC p. 138) "105. Power under Section 319CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319CrPC. In Section 319CrPC the purpose of providing if 'it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR clear from the words 'for which such person could be tried together with the accused'. The words used are not 'for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."
(emphasis in original)
11.The test as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court for invoking the powers under Section 319CrPC inter alia includes the principle that only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence the power under Section 319CrPC should be exercised. The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. The test to be applied, as laid down by this Court, is one which is more than prima facie which is applied at the time of framing of charges. It will all depend upon the evidence which is tendered in a given case as to whether there is a strong ground within the meaning of para 105 of Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] referred to above.
........ ......... .........
14. We are not impressed with the submission as noted in para 12 above canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the simple reason that a person is named in the FIR by the complainant but the police, after investigation finds no role of that particular person and files charge-sheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so.
15. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak, (2017) 16 SCC 226 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 138] wherein the Court observed in para 35 as under : (SCC p. 243) "35. It needs to be highlighted that when a person is named in the FIR by the complainant,
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR but police, after investigation, finds no role of that particular person and files the charge-sheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless, and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so. At that stage, chance is given to the complainant also to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet. Once that stage has gone, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC. However, this section gets triggered when during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused."
16. Thus, even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319CrPC and even those persons named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused.
17. It is relevant to note at this stage that the closure report filed by the police in the case on hand is yet to be looked into by the court concerned. The same has not been accepted till this date. However, the closure report now pales into insignificance in view of the order passed by the trial court under Section 319CrPC summoning the petitioners herein to face the trial. We may only add that it would have been in the fitness of things if the court concerned would have looked into the closure report at the earliest and passed an appropriate order one way or the other after hearing the de facto complainant. The court should not keep the closure report pending for consideration for a long time. Such report should be looked into promptly.
18. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed no error not to speak of any error of law in passing the
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR impugned order [OMI v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 9372].
19. The principles of law as regards Section 319CrPC may be summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
19.2. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge-sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence."
(Emphasis supplied) 9.2. In NEERAJ KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P.2, the Apex Court summarizes the entire law on Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and observes as follows:
"4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The sole issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Courts below, in the attending facts and circumstances, were justified in dismissing the application for summoning the respondents as additional accused?2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2639
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Section 319 CrPC contemplates that:
"(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. ..."
6. The law governing the summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC is now well settled. The provision is an enabling one, empowering the Court, during the course of an inquiry or trial, to proceed against any person not already arraigned as an accused, if, from the evidence adduced before it, such person appears to have committed an offence. Its object is to ensure that no guilty person escapes the process of law, thereby giving effect to the maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted). It casts a duty upon the Court to ensure that the real offender does not go unpunished, for only then can the concept of fair and complete trial be realised.
7. It is no longer res integra that the power conferred under this Section is extraordinary and discretionary in nature, intended to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. While invoking it, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence appearing against the person sought to be summoned is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. The degree of satisfaction required is higher than that warranted at the stage of framing of charge, yet short of the satisfaction necessary to record a conviction. Such satisfaction must rest on cogent and credible material brought on record during the trial, and not based on conjectures or speculations. In this regard, reference to a few judicial pronouncements of this Court would be apposite.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR 7.1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92] extensively discussed the power conferred under Section 319 CrPC. Relevant part is extracted hereunder:
"90. ... all that is required for the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC is that, it must appear to the court that some other person also who is not facing the trial, may also have been involved in the offence. The prerequisite for the exercise of this power is similar to the prima facie view which the Magistrate must come to in order to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, no straitjacket formula can and should be laid with respect to conditions precedent for arriving at such an opinion and, if the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s). It is essential to note that the section also uses the words "such person could be tried" instead of should be tried. Hence, what is required is not to have a mini-trial at this stage by having examination and cross-examination and thereafter rendering a decision on the overt act of such person sought to be added. In fact, it is this mini-trial that would affect the right of the person sought to be arraigned as an accused rather than not having any cross-examination at all, for in light of sub-section (4) of Section 319 CrPC, the person would be entitled to a fresh trial where he would have all the rights including the right to cross- examine prosecution witnesses and examine defence witnesses and advance his arguments upon the same. Therefore, even on the basis of examination- in-chief, the court or the Magistrate can proceed against a person as long as the court is satisfied that the evidence appearing against such person is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial. In fact, examination-in-chief untested by cross-examination, undoubtedly in itself, is an evidence.
xxx
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. ...
xxx
110. In Lal Suraj [Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 844], a two-Judge Bench held that there is no dispute with the legal proposition that even if a person had not been chargesheeted, he may come within the purview of the description of such a person as contained in Section 319 CrPC. A similar view had been taken in Lok Ram [Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh, (2006) 10 SCC 192 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 532 : AIR 2006 SC 1892], wherein it was held that a person, though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
xxx 117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial..."
(emphasis supplied) 7.2. In S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak [(2017) 16 SCC 226], it reiterated that under this Section the Court possesses the power to summon the persons not named in the chargesheet to face trial, if the evidence on record so warrants. It further clarified that a statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, though not an independent piece of evidence, sufficient in itself to invoke the power under this Section may, nevertheless, be relied upon for corroborative purposes when supported by evidence emerging during trial. It was observed as under:
"34. ... No doubt, at one place the Constitution Bench observed in Hardeep Singh case [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] that the word "evidence" has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. In para 105 of the judgment, however, it is
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR observed that "only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner". This sentence gives an impression that only that evidence which has been led before the Court is to be seen and not the evidence which was collected at the stage of inquiry. However there is no contradiction between the two observations as the Court also clarified that the "evidence", on the basis of which an accused is to be summoned to face the trial in an ongoing case, has to be the material that is brought before the Court during trial. The material/evidence collected by the investigating officer at the stage of inquiry can only be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC.
35. It needs to be highlighted that when a person is named in the FIR by the complainant, but police, after investigation, finds no role of that particular person and files the chargesheet without implicating him, the Court is not powerless, and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the chargesheet, it can do so. At that stage, chance is given to the complainant also to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the chargesheet. Once that stage has gone, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC. However, this section gets triggered when during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused."
(emphasis supplied) 7.3. In Omi v. State of M.P. [(2025) 2 SCC 621], a coordinate bench of this Court laid the following principles of law with regard to Section 319 CrPC:
"19. The principles of law as regards Section 319 CrPC may be summarised as under:
19.1. On a careful reading of Section 319 CrPC as well as the aforesaid two decisions, it becomes clear that the trial court has undoubted jurisdiction to add any person not being
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial. It is further evident that such person even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge-sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.
19.2. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the chargesheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the chargesheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.
19.3. The power of the court under Section 319 CrPC is not controlled or governed by naming or not naming of the person concerned in the FIR. Nor the same is dependent upon submission of the chargesheet by the police against the person concerned. As regards the contention that the phrase "any person not being the accused"
occurred in Section 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Section 319(1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the criminal court are included in the said expression.
19.4. It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the investigating officer. When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the investigating officer hardly matters. If satisfaction of investigating officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated."
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR (emphasis supplied) 7.4. Recently, this Court, through one of us (Sanjay Karol, J.), in Shiv Baran v. State of U.P. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1457] summarised the principles that the Court ought to keep in mind while considering an application under this Section. It was observed:
"15. The principles that the Trial Court ought to follow while exercising power under this Section are:
(a) This provision is a facet of that area of law which gives protection to victims and society at large, ensuring that the perpetrators of crime should not escape the force of law;
(b) It is the duty cast upon the Court not to let the guilty get away unpunished;
(c) The Trial Court has broad but not unbridled power as this power can be exercised only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not any other material collected during investigation;
(d) The Trial Court is not powerless to summon a person who is not named in the FIR or Chargesheet; they can be impleaded if the evidence adduced inculpates him;
(e) This power is not to be exercised in a regular or cavalier manner, but only when strong or cogent evidence is available than the mere probability of complicity;
(f) The degree of satisfaction required is much stricter than the prima facie case, which is needed at the time of framing of charge(s);
(g) The Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage as the expression used is 'such person could be tried' and not 'should be tried'.
(emphasis supplied)
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. The deposition of PW-2, Shristi, the minor daughter of the deceased, prima facie has considerable evidentiary value, given the fact that she is allegedly an eyewitness to the occurrence. She narrated the events of the fateful day in the following terms:
....... ....... .......
From reading the above, it is evident that a quarrel took place between her parents. During this altercation, her father, Rahul Yadav, obtained a country made pistol from her uncle Sattan @Vineet (Respondent No. 3 herein) and, on the provocation of her grandmother Rajo @Rajwati (Respondent No. 2 herein) and her aunt's husband Gabbar (Respondent No. 4 herein), fired at her mother/deceased. The High Court, however, in the impugned judgment, concluded that PW-2 was not an eyewitness to the actual firing and relied on her cross-examination wherein she stated - "I had heard the sound of firing. From sound of firing I came to know that, that two times firing was made. I had seen empty cartridge on ground.". to hold that she had reached the scene of occurrence only after hearing the gunshots. In our considered view, the High Court's approach is erroneous. Drawing such an inference amounts to conducting a mini-trial at the stage of summoning, which is impermissible. At the stage of deciding the application under Section 319 CrPC, the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh the probative value of the evidence as would be done at the end of the trial for determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. What the Court has to consider at this stage is whether the material on record reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused so as to exercise the extraordinary power. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Courts below on PW-2's cross-examination to discredit her testimony was misplaced.
12. The respondents have further contended that PW- 2 did not initially name the respondents in her statement recorded during the investigation and that, being a minor, she may have been influenced or tutored to implicate the respondents, as she was residing with the appellant's family following the incident. However, we are not persuaded to accept this contention, as even in her statement recorded under Section 161, had categorically
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR named the respondents as those who instigated the commission of the said crime. She stated:
....... ....... .......
While a statement recorded under
Section 161 CrPC is not substantive evidence in itself, it may be used to corroborate the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC, as held in S. Mohammed Ispahani (supra). Therefore, conjointly reading PW-2's deposition along with her Section 161 statement, we find that a specific and overt act has been assigned to the respondents. Whether she actually witnessed the firing or arrived immediately thereafter, and the extent to which her statement inspires confidence, are matters that are to be determined at the stage of trial, upon full appreciation of the evidence. The testimony of a child witness shall be weighed by the Court concerned in view of the principles in laid in State of Rajasthan v. Chatra [(2025) 8 SCC 613] and State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh [(2025) 8 SCC 545].
13. Lastly, the prosecution has also placed reliance upon the statements of the deceased recorded during the investigation under Section 161 CrPC to seek the summoning of the respondents. However, the respondents have contended that such statements cannot be relied upon as, firstly, they were neither recorded in the presence of a Magistrate nor accompanied by any contemporaneous medical certification regarding the mental fitness of the deceased to give such statements; and secondly, both statements are inconsistent inter se, since the first one does not name the respondents whereas the second does.
....... ....... .......
17. Consequent to the above discussion, we find that the material on record, i.e. the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, along with the statements of the deceased recorded during the investigation, prima facie suggests the complicity of the respondents in the commission of the said offence. There, thus, exists sufficient ground to exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC and summon them to face trial in Sessions Trial No. 1151 of 2021. The objections raised by the respondents, including the alleged tutoring of the minor witness, omission of their names in
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR the FIR, inconsistencies in the statements of the deceased and lack of contemporaneous medical certification, are all premature and cannot be conclusively decided at the stage of exercising power under Section 319 CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that while deciding an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to test the credibility or weigh the probative value of evidence since such an exercise takes place at the end of trial for determining the conviction or otherwise of the accused. What the Court has to consider at this stage is whether the material on record reasonably indicates involvement of the proposed accused, so as to exercise the extraordinary power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C..
10. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the elucidation of law by the Apex Court, what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner must come out clean in a trial that is now pending against him. Mere pendency of a civil suit will not clothe the petitioner with the protection that he cannot be bought back into the trial once he has been dropped. The dropping of the petitioner from the
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13572 CRL.P No. 15778 of 2025 HC-KAR array of accused while filing the charge sheet, was itself prima facie erroneous.
11. In that light, the petition lacking in merit stands dismissed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36