The court established that the invocation of Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. requires strong and cogent evidence against a person not initially accused, and this power must be exercised cautiously and not routinely.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dtd. 20/4/2023 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.11657 of 2017 by which the petitioner is sought to be dragged into the case on an application filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: The petitioner at the relevant point in time was working as Senior Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi Division, Bengaluru. When so functioning, the petitioner is said to have registered gift deeds brought before him in terms of the Act and the Rules i.e., Registration Act, 1908 and the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. The petitioner leaves the post after having worked for two years at the said place. After the petitioner moving out of the said post, a private complaint comes to be registered by one B.N. Sreekantaswamy, the complainant against members of the family as also the petitioner who was arrayed as accused No.4. The learned Magistrate refers the matter under Sec. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., for investigation at the hands of the jurisdictional Police. This, then becomes a crime in Crime No.195 of 2016 for offences punishable under Ss. 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of the IPC. The Police conduct investigation and lay a charge sheet against all the accused except the petitioner. To say that the petitioner was dropped from the array of accused, the police did not file any charge sheet against him but cited him as a witness - CW7.

3. The other accused, on the ground that the petitioner had been dropped from the array of accused, knocked at the doors of this Court seeking quashment of entire proceedings on the ground that the issue was purely civil in nature. The other accused were accused Nos. 1 to 3 who filed Criminal Petition No.8744 of 2018. The said petition was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 14/3/2023 holding that it was a matter of trial for those accused to come out clean. While so doing, the Co-ordinate Bench reserved right in the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C., subject to all statutory compliance. The petitioner who was cited as a witness in the proceedings was permitted to be brought in as an accused subject to statutory compliance that is necessary for invoking and allowing an application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, an application came to be filed by the prosecution under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C., quoting the order passed by this Court to array the petitioner as accused instead of him being a witness - CW-7. The concerned Court by its order dtd. 20/4/2023 issues notice to the petitioner on the application made by the prosecution to arraign him as accused No.6 in the aforesaid case. The moment notice is issued, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri.Satish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Mahesh Shetty, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. B.N.Sreekantaswamy, party-in-person - respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel representing the petitioner would contend that what the petitioner did in the year 2013 was registering two gift deeds in favour one Smt. B.N. Parvati and her mother Smt. B.N. Kamalamma and the deeds were executed by Smt. B.N. Sharadamba. It is his submission that the petitioner had no role to play in the contents of the documents. They were brought before him and in terms of the Act and the Rules he has registered those documents. Therefore, there was no warrant for the concerned Court to issue notice even on the application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. He would further contend that merely because this Court had permitted the trial Court to bring in the petitioner, it was subject to statutory compliance, and it would be in terms of what the Apex Court has held. The other submission is that, the private complaint filed by the 2nd respond