Wife Can't Be Made Co-Accused Merely For Staying With Husband Who Is Involved In Crime, Stronger Evidence Needed U/S 319 CrPC: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, which provides to bring in another person accused in the case cannot be exercised at a pre-trial stage.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one R K Bhat who is the complainant in the case seeking to implead one Shanthi Roache as a co-accused in a case registered against her husband Norbert D'Souza for offences punishable under provisions of Karnataka Excise Act.

The court said, “Power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised at a pre-trial stage, as to bring in another accused. There must be some evidence and for some evidence the trial must commence. It is an admitted fact that in the case at hand, the trial is yet to commence. Moreover, Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. casts higher degree of evidence against the person who is sought to be impleaded as an accused than what is available at the time of investigation.”

The complainant through the prosecution had filed the application. However, the court rejected the same. The petitioner contended that the wife was residing along with accused Nos.2 and 3 who were alleged of selling large amounts of spurious liquor. The wife of the accused also had equal knowledge of manufacturing, storing and selling of spurious liquor, it was claimed.

The prosecution also supported the submission of the petitioner.

The bench noted that Section 319 CrPC permits summoning of a person as an additional accused. To summon someone as an additional accused who has either been dropped from the charge sheet or never an accused at any point in time, requires evidence that is necessary for drawing up as an accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.

Referring to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shankar v. State of UP (2024), the court said, “The husband is already an accused - accused No.3. It cannot be said that the husband and the wife both should be accused of the same crime, merely because the wife was staying with the husband.”

It added, “There is not even an allegation that the wife had indulged in the activities of manufacturing and storing of spurious liquor. Merely because she is the wife of accused No.3, against whom all the allegations are made, she cannot be brought into the web of crime.”

Rejecting the petition the court said, “The application is misconceived and filed with an oblique motive to settle scores with accused No.3 that too, at a pre-trial stage.”

Appearance: Advocate Rajashekar S for Petitioner

Additional SPP B.N Jagadessha for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 461

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8700 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order