The power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and should be exercised before the conclusion of the trial. The Court must find prima facie evidence against the proposed accused and follow the guidelines for summoning additional accused persons.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 -State.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') praying to set aside the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapura (for short 'Trial Court') in S.C.No.47/2017 on an application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The petitioner is the de-facto complainant, respondent No.1 is the proposed accused and respondent No.2 is the complainant/State.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on the written complaint filed by petitioner against accused Nos.1 to 4 (her in laws) alleging that, since 2 to 3 months prior to 22.03.2016 accused Nos.1 to 4 were harassed her deceased husband and PW.6 -Renuka and tortured them, thus, they attempted to commit suicide, however, PW.6 survived and her husband died on 22.03.2016 at 11.00 a.m. in Nebageri village, Muddebihal taluka, hence, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.90/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

5. Initially UDR was registered and during the course of investigation, FIR came to be registered against in all four accused persons, however, the Investigating Officer deleted the name of accused No.3 -Siddappa S/o Chandappa, thus, he was not sent up for trial. The Trial Court framed charges against accused No.1 -Chandappa, accused No.2 -Neelamma and accused No.3 -Basavaraj for the aforesaid offences. During the course of evidence, PW.6 -Renuka, PW.8 -Chanamma Patil and PW.9 -Shivanagouda Patil have deposed against the proposed accused -Siddappa (shown as accused No.3 in FIR) and his role played in commission of the offence. Therefore, PW.6 filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, however, the Trial Court rejected the said application on 01.07.2022. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, PW.6 -Renuka has filed this petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the complaint averments, the allegation against accused No.1 -Chandappa, accused No.2 -Neelamma who are in-laws of petitioner and accused No.3-Basavaraj brother-in-law of petitioner and proposed accused No.3 -Siddappa elder brother-in-law of petitioner, complaining that, they all with a common intention subjected the petitioner to physical and mental cruelty including her husband (deceased-Shrishail), whenever her husband came to her rescue, questioning them and he was teased for supporting her and asking the petitioner and her husband not to stay in the house and at that time petitioner and her husband demanded share in the family properties, thus, accused Nos.1 to 3 and proposed accused -Siddappa abused PW.6 and her husband in filthy language and asked both petitioner and her husband to go and die elsewhere by leaving the house, thus, being frustrated by the harassment made by accused Nos.1 to 3 and proposed accused -Siddappa, both the petitioner and her husband consumed poison on 22.03.2016 to commit suicide and on this process, petitioner -Renuka survived, whereas, her husband Shrishail died.

7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently argued and submitted that, Investigating Officer has rightly investigated the matter and as there was no allegation against the proposed accused, the proposed accused was not sent up for trial, but, in the evidence, PWs.6, 8 and 9 have made general and omnibus allegations so as to attract Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., hence, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Sin