IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.07.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN Crl.O.P.No.27231 of 2007 B. Gopalakrishnan .. Petitioner/Petitioner Versus The State represented by Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. .. Respondent/Complainant Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 20.07.2007 passed in CRP.No.28 of 2007 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. Act Cases, Coimbatore and to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II to implead the above said persons. For Petitioner : M/s. S.Nagarajan For Respondent : Mr. R.Muniappa raj Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R The petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition No.27231 of 2007 to set aside the order dated 20.07.2007 passed in CRP.No.28 of 2007 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. Act Cases, Coimbatore and to direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II to implead the above said persons. 2. The petitioner has filed C.M.P.No.634 of 2007 in C.C.No.142 of 2002 to implead the below mentioned persons as accused namely, 1) Prasad Iyer, Financial Consultant, (2) Suresh Babu, (3) Daniel, (4) Ratnakumar, (5) Abdul Mohideen, and necessary parties in this case and order them to be brought before this Court and deal with them according to law and punish them for the offences committed by them. 3. The facts of the case is that the respondent police has charged the petitioner for an alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and one Das are the partners of M/s. Das Diagnostics and they availed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a term loan of Rs.5 lakhs from M/s. Syndicate Bank, Coimbatore. They had submitted project report, quotations, property documents etc. After complying with all formalities, the bank had sanctioned the loan by way of demand draft in favour of M/s. Alpha X-ray Systems, Madurai for supplying the machinery to the concern. After that, the bank had come to know that the accused have colluded together, and misappropriated the money and cheated the bank by submitting fabricated documents. The bank preferred a complaint with the respondent police against the five persons, namely, (1) Das (2) Gopalakrishnan (3) Rajarathinam (4) Prasad Iyer, and (5) M/s. Alpha X-ray Systems. 4. After receipt of the complaint, the respondent police has filed the charge sheet against the following persons, namely, (1) Das, (2) Gopalakrishnan (3) Rajarathinam, and (4) William Jayakumar. The fourth accused, Mr.Prasad Iyer was deleted from the case and the investigation officer filed 51 documents and statements of 15 witnesses. When the defacto complainant was examined and documents were marked, the involvement of the said Prasad Iyer, in the above case, was clearly established. Hence, the petitioner herein had filed the C.M.P.No.634 of 2007 to implead the said Prasad Iyer as co- accused, as per Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 5. The C.M.P.No.634 of 2007, after contest, was dismissed by the learned Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by this order passed in C.M.P.No.634 of 2007 in C.C.No.141 of 2002 dated 16.02.2007, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore, the petitioner had filed a revision petition in C.R.P.No.28 of 2007. The learned Additional and District Sessions Judge dismissed the C.R.P.No.28 of 2007 on 20.07.2007 and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate passed in C.M.P.No.634 of 2007 in C.C.No.141 of 2002, dated 16.02.2007. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to set aside the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. The respondent contended that he has received complaint and registered the same against the five accused persons initially. Thereafter, after investigation, the fourth accused Mr.Prasad Iyer was deleted from the case, and the investigation officer proceeded with the case before the learned Magistrate to establish his case. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether Section 319 of Cr.P.C can be applied in the present case. A reading of Cr.P.C under Section 319 states as follows: "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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such persons could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. " Under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the power to add a party as an accused is vested solely with the Magistrate. 8. Considering that the petitioner is an accused, he cannot insist the Court to an rope in another persons as co-accused. The petitioner/accused does not have any locus-standi to file the above petition, under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The Court has also taken into consideration that the petitioner had not sought any remedy against the said Prasad Iyer. The investigating officer, is the competent person to establish the prosecution case. As such the above Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar mra To 1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C.Act Cases, Coimbatore. 2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore. 3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.S.Nagarajan, Advocate, SR.No.31502 Crl.O.P.No.27231 of 2007 BKY {CO} TP/21.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/