Suspect Deleted From Chargesheet Can Be Added As Accused At Cognizance Stage, Need Not Wait For Trial To Reach Stage Of S.319 CrPC: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in a criminal case, one need not wait till the case reaches the stage at which a petition under section 319 of the CrPC can be filed to array the names of deleted accused and that a Magistrate can take cognizance against deleted accused at the time when the chargesheet is filed.

The order was passed by Justice Tarlada Rajashekhar Rao in a criminal petition, challenging the dismissal order passed by the Session Judge in a Criminal revision petition, wherein the Court relying upon Jile Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors held that the appropriate time to add an accused to the criminal proceeding would be at the time of trial, when a petition under Section 319 of the CrPC can be filed.

Section 319 gives the Court discretionary power to add the name of an individual as an accused, if compelling evidence is found against him/her during the course of trial.

The High Court, disagreeing with the view taken by a sessions court, noted that the principle relied on by the Sessions Court was bad in the eyes of law. The Bench relying upon Dharam Pal Singh & Ors Vs State of Haryana has held that if the magistrate disagrees with the police report he may not only act on any protest petitions filed, but he may also issue summons in the absence of a protest petition.

Further it noted that "The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that there is no need to wait till the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was reached, before proceeding against the persons against whom a prima facie case was made out from the materials contained in the case papers sent by the learned Magistrate while committing the case to the Court of Session. It is also observed that waiting till the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial would have to be commenced de novo against such persons which would not only lead to duplication of the trial, but also prolong the same.."

Background

Initially a father preferred a complaint against accused 1-12 on the basis of a suicide note left by his daughter. It was alleged that accused 1-12 harassed the deceased in college, due to which she eventually took her own life.

The case was investigated and a police report was filed only against accused number 1. Aggrieved, the complainant/father filed a protest petition before the Magistrate praying that the case may be tried against all the accused. The petition was allowed by the Magistrate.

Following this the accused preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate. The Sessions Court held that the accused can only be impleaded at the time of the trial.

The High Court, while setting aside the order of the Sessions Court, directed that the trial be conducted against all the accused.

"In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken against the accused and committed the accused to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.125 of 2017, held by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jile Singh's case (1) supra) deleting from the array of the accused that can be added only under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable in law and it was contrary to the law laid down in Dharam Pal's case (3 Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge to add the array of the deleted accused has to wait till the case reaches the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is un-sustainable in view of the law laid down in Dharam Pal's case (3 supra). Accordingly, it is liable to be set aside," the order read.

Case no.: CrlP 12904 of 2018

Counsel for petitioner: Srinivasa Rao Narra

Counsel for respondents: Venkat Challa

Click Here To Read/Download Order