The discretionary and extraordinary nature of the power under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C., requiring strong and cogent evidence against a person before exercising the power to involve them in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dtd. 25/4/2022 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTSC-I), Mysuru (Special Court for trial of cases filed under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act' for short)) in Special Case No.202 of 2020 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking his discharge from the proceedings is turned down. While framing charge, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.11.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:- A complaint is registered before the Police by the close consultant of Sakhi One Stop Centre, Cheluvamba Hospital, Mysuru alleging commission of sexual acts upon the victim who was 8 years old. The complaint or its merit is not the issue in the present lis. Based upon the said complaint a charge sheet is filed by the police for offences punishable under Ss. 5(g), 5(l), 5(m), 6, 9(g), 9(l), 9(m) 10 of the POCSO Act and Ss. 354A , 376(2) and 376DB of the IPC. The petitioner herein was not added as accused neither in the FIR nor while framing the charge. Evidence is recorded in Special Case No.202 of 2020. At the time of evidence during examination-in-chief and cross- examination of the victim facts that emerged led the prosecution to file the application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. seeking arraigning of the petitioner along with five others as accused Nos. 6 to 12. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.11.

3. On the petitioner being arraigned as accused in the charges framed against other accused Nos. 1 to 5, the petitioner files an application before the learned Sessions Judge under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge from the case on the ground that he has nothing to do with the offences so alleged or the evidence that has come on record. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dtd. 25/4/2022 rejects the application on the ground that there were indications in the evidence about the involvement of the petitioner in the offences so alleged. It is this order declining to discharge the petitioner that drives him to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri Rudrappa.P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be abused in this manner to direct anyone and everyone who are not connected with the offence to involve them. The evidence nowhere indicates any act of the petitioner that can become offence punishable under the POCSO Act or even offences under the IPC , as alleged and, therefore, seeks dropping of the name of the petitioner from the array of parties in the special case.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the material that led the prosecution to bring in the petitioner as an accused is based on evidence and it is a matter for the petitioner to come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts as to what drives filing of the application by the prosecution to bring accused 6 to 12 into the array of accused after filing of the charge sheet is not in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been abused by dragging in the petitioner into the web of the lis along with others, without there being any evidence whatsoever. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"319. 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 the evidence that a