IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of additional accused to face trial – Power Under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances of case so warrant.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants assailing the correctness of a decision of the Madras High Court (the “High Court”) dated 13.09.2021, setting aside an order dated 24.10.2019 passed by the Ld. XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (the “Trial Court”) whereunder, the Trial Court rejected the application instituted by the Complainant under Section 216 read with Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the “Cr.P.C.”) seeking (i) the summoning of and (ii) the impleadment of the Appellants as accused persons in connection with Case Crime No. 7243 of 2018 under Sections 452, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the “IPC”) (the “Impugned Order”).

3. The brief facts culled out of the record are as follows:

3.1. Pursuant to an order of the High Court dated 24.01.2018, Respondent No. 1 registered a First Information Report (“FIR”) dated 20.04.2018 under Sections 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of the IPC pursuant to a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Complainant whereunder it was alleged that, Respondent No. 3 came to the Complainant’s home asking about one Vidhul i.e. the Complainant’s son. Upon being told that Viduhl was the Complainant’ son Respondent No. 3 slapped the Complainant, pushed her on the sofa, made vulgar comments and thereafter dragged Vidhul out of the bathroom and physically assaulted him up until he fell unconscious. Subsequently, Respondent No. 3 extended threats to the Complainant. Pertinently, it was also stated in the FIR that Respondent No. 3 was accompanied by her husband and another ‘boy’, however no role was ascribed to aforesaid persons.

3.2. A chargesheet came to be filed before the Trial Court by Respondent No. 1 against Respondent No. 3 under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) and 448 IPC. Subsequently the charge under Section 448 IPC came to be altered to Section 452 IPC. Pertinently, the Complainant, other eyewitnesses and the doctor who examined the injured victims only named and ascribed a role to Respondent No. 3 in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the investigating authorities.

3.3. An application dated 27.01.2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. came to be preferred by the Complainant before the High Court seeking re-investigation qua the FIR. At this stage, for first time, the Complainant individually (a) named (i) Appellant No. 1 i.e. Respondent No. 3’s husband and (ii) Appellant No. 2 i.e. a relative of Respondent No. 3 and (b) ascribed a particular role qua the alleged incident to them i.e. that the Appellants trespassed into the Complainant’s home, hurled vulgar abuses and also threatened to kill the Complainant’s son. It was also stated that although the Complainant allegedly named the aforesaid persons, the same was not recorded in the FIR (“Re-Investigation Application”). The High Court vide an order dated 05.02.2019 in the Re-Investigation Application, observed that the investigation had concluded and a charge-sheet had be filed by the investigating authorities. Accordingly, the High Court granted the Complainant liberty to prefer an application under Sections 319 read with 216 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking impleadment of the Appellants qua the proceedings emanating from the FIR. Further, the Trial Court was directed to consider the application of the Complainant under Sections 319 read with 216 of the Cr.P.C. and implead the Appellants as accused persons during the examination of witnesses (if necessary) (the “Re-Investigation Order”).

3.4. Pursuant to the Re-Investigation Order, an application dated 19.03.2019 under Sections 319 read with 216 of the Cr.P.C. came to be preferred by the Complainant before the Trial Court whereunder it was stated that (i) despite naming the Appellants, the FIR only came to be lodged against Respondent No. 3 i.e. allegedly the names of the Appellants were omitted by the investigating authorities; (ii) the statements recorded by investigating authority un