HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3000 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-de facto complainant, under Section 482 read with Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 05.11.2009 made in Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2009 in S.C.No.269 of 2009 on the file of the IV Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur which was confirmed by the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, in C.R.P.No.32 of 2010 vide order dated 15.02.2010. The brief facts of the case are that basing on the report of the petitioner dated 08.08.2010 against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, a case in Crime No.204 of 2008 was registered by the Arundalpet (L & O) P.S., Guntur and, after completion of investigation, charge sheet is laid before the IV Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur against A.1 to A.3 by deleting the name of the sister-in-law of the petitioner, and the same is numbered as S.C.No.269 of 2009. During the course of trial, the petitioner deposed before the trial Court that her sister-in-law also harassed and humiliated her. Hence, the Public Prosecutor filed Crl.M.P.No.21 of 2009 in S.C.No.269 of 2009 before the trial Court, under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to implead the sister-in-law of the petitioner namely Chirumamilla Madhavi as accused No.4 in the case, but the said petition was dismissed by an order dated 05.11.2009 and, against the said order, a revision in C.R.P.No.32 of 2010 before the I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur was preferred and the said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-de facto complaint filed this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is abundant and voluminous material which would indicate the involvement of the proposed accused, so as to exercise the powers as envisaged under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Perused the entire record. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a self contained Section. The trial Court is at liberty to take cognizance of an offence against any of the person who is not arrayed as an accused or who is cited as an accused in the First Information Report or any other person during the course of enquiry or trial. The trial Court as well as the revision Court considering the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police felt that there is no convincing material to implead the proposed accused as accused No.4 and they have given reasons for dismissal of the petition and the revision. This Court is of the view that to add an accused by invoking the provisions under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., it should be only based on the evidence adduced before the Court. The First Information Report or the statements or any other material placed before the Court cannot be called as evidence. Hence, the trial Court may not look into the material placed before it to include a person as accused by invoking the provisions under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, what all remains is the evidence adduced by the petitioner herein. In the said evidence, it is stated that the proposed accused also harassed and humiliated her when she (proposed accused) returned from Singapore. On the said evidence, the learned Public Prosecutor preferred a petition before the trial Court to implead the proposed accused as accused No.4 in the case. The learned Magistrate, considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses and after perusal of the material, has rightly decided the issue against the complainant. On a reading of the order passed by the trial Court as confirmed by the revision Court, this Court is of the view that the criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 15th November, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Petition No.3000 of 2010 (Disposed of) 15th November, 2011 cbs