IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2007 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 1987 of 2005 --------------------------------------- CRMP 1369/05 IN CC.212/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: SANJEEV, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, MULACKAL VEEDU, MUTTITHADI DESOM, AMBALLOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN S.RALPH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT& STATE/ACCUSED: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.739/98), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MOHANAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY, PUNNAKKATTU VEEDU, 35, GANDHI NAGAR, ELAMKULAM(ACCUSED). 3. SANTHAPAN, S/O.SUNDARESAN, AGED 55 YEARS, 37/93, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20(NO MORE). 4. PRASAD, AGED 42 YEARS, VIJAYALAYAM HOUSE 37/93, ERNAKAULAM, COCHIN-30. 5. VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.SANTHAPPAN, VIJAYALAYAM HOUSE, 37/93, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-20. 6. RAJESH, AGED 25, S/O.SANTHAPPAN, VIJAYALAYAM HOUSE, 37/93, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-30. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 1987 of 2005 --------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C. No.212/00 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Ernakulam. the prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash Annexure-A3 order and allow Annexure-A4 petition filed by the petitioner seeking for adding of four other persons also as accused in C.C.No.212/00 aforesaid invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner, originally, resorted to have them also arraigned as accused by causing the Assistant Public Prosecutor to file an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and that was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 30.1.2003, as it was submitted that the petition was being filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor; that the investigating officer had never asked her to file the said petition and it was filed at the request of the CRMC 1987/05 2 defacto complainant in the case. It is, thereafter, that Annexure-A4 petition was filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. asking for addition of four other accused in the case. The learned Magistrate considered the application and vide Annexure-A3 dismissed the said application. The learned Magistrate observed in the order that other than the defacto complainant, no other occurrence witness has supported the prosecution case and has spoken to the complicity of persons, who are arraigned as accused in the commission of the crime. It is for the trial court to get satisfied, in the course of trial, that other persons also are involved in the commission of the offence and that such persons are also to be added as accused to stand trial along with the accused already in the party array. Inasmuch as the learned Magistrate was not so satisfied, the order passed by him dismissing Annexure-A4 application, cannot be CRMC 1987/05 3 faulted. The purpose of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not for the defacto complainant to have his animosity worked out against the persons, who are not arraigned as accused in the case already. If at all the petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation and final report submitted in the case, nothing prevented him from filing a complaint, so as to have the police charge case and the private complaint tried consecutively. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C. and this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. 1st November, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv