The main legal point established in the judgment is that there must be sufficient material to arraign a person as an additional accused, and the court has the jurisdiction to quash an order if it infringes the rights of the petitioner.

ORDER

1. Heard Sri Sachin M. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for first respondent - State and Sri Veershetty and B.K. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the records.

2. This Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. with the following prayer:

"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for records and quash the order dated 17.09.2022 passed by the learned II Addl. Dist. & sitting at Basavakalyan in Crl.RP Sessions Judge, Bidar, No.5002/2021, wherein the learned Sessions set aside the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Humnabad in CC No.192/2017 and allow the application filed by the respondent herein under section 319 CrPC and array the petitioner herein as accused No.2 in CC No.192/2017 for the alleged offence punishable under section 323, 504, 506, R/w 34 of IPC, in the interest of justice."

3. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:

Second respondent filed a private complaint which was registered in PC No.20/2017 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Humnabad. The private complaint was referred to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.,

4. After receipt of the private complaint, the Humnabad Police registered a case in Crime No.192/2017 on 28.06.2017 initially for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. After thorough investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC as against one Ashok son of Shivachandra Agadi and dropped the case against the petitioner who was the second accused in the private complaint.

5. The complainant did not challenge the final report and also the offences invoked by the police in the charge sheet and the matter went for trial as the accused Ashok did not plead guilty. When the matter stood thus, an application came to be filed by the prosecution on 30.07.2019 under Section 319 Cr.P.C., stating that the petitioner herein has also involved in cheating the complainant and therefore, he has to be arraigned as a second accused in the case. The learned Trial Magistrate issued show cause notice to the petitioner herein and petitioner herein filed a detailed written objections as to how he is not a necessary accused person in the case on hand. The learned Trial Magistrate heard the parties in detail and passed an order rejecting the application filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by order dated 12.10.2020.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate, the prosecution filed a Revision Petition before the District Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.5002/2021. Notice of the Revision Petition was served on the present petitioner and he contested the matter. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties, by order dated 17.9.2022, issued direction to the Trial Court to issue summons to accused No.2 to face trial for the alleged charges.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the proposed accused No.2 has challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge in this petition on the following grounds:

It is submitted that the alleged dispute if any is between the complainant and the accused No.1 Ashok. Admittedly there is no involvement of the petitioner in so far as the alleged business is concerned. Admittedly the petitioner is neither party to any agreement or partner in the alleged business. The bank account as per the complainant is between the complainant and the accused No.1. The complainant does not disclose in a credible way as to how the petitioner is involved in the business between himself and the accused No.1. Therefore, from the perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order