IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of additional accused to face trial—Although anyone can put criminal law into motion, primary responsibility for prosecuting offender of public crimes rests on shoulders of State.

ORDER

Krishna S. Dixit, J.—Petitioner a practising advocate of repute and an office bearer of Advocates Association, Bengaluru, is invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grieving against the order dated 15.06.2018 whereby the learned judge of the Special Court, Bengaluru, having rejected his application filed under Section 319 of the Code has declined to array the respondents as the accused in S.C.C.No.455/2017 in which the trial is half way through. After service of notice, respondents having entered appearance through their advocates oppose the petition arguing in support of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

2. Brief facts:

a) One Mr. Y.H.Srinivas of (Matter in Other Language) Bhrastaachaara Virodhi Vedike, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, lodged an FIR dated 27.12.2014 against five BBMP officials named and others unnamed, with the first respondent – Lokayukta Police; it was alleged in the said FIR that about a thousand records/files concerning the BBMP contract work were being fabricated in a private house, with intent to swallow public money of about 120 crore rupees fraudulently without doing any work; he also mentioned about an i10 car used for carrying the files to & fro.

b) The Lokayukta Police registered the FIR in Crime No.60/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(c) & (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; after the accomplishment of investigation, the said police filed the Charge Sheet against as many as ten persons and thereby set them on trial in C.C.No.455/2017 for the offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the P.C. Act and also Sections 471 & 420 of IPC; learned judge of the Court below took cognizance of the offences and framed charges.

c) After the trial began, petitioner here in filed an application dated 12.03.2018 under Section 319 of the Code seeking arraignment of the respondents herein as additional accused; the application was founded on the statement given by the second respondent to the police on 18.02.2015 under Section 161 of the Code; this was opposed by the respondent – Lokayukta by filing Objections dated 30.05.2018 contending that the application was premature and that, there was no material on record for implicating the said respondents.

d) Learned judge of the Court below having heard the petitioner and the respondent – Lokayukta Police, made the impugned order dismissing the subject application; aggrieved thereby, petitioner is before this Court. In support of his case, petitioner has relied upon certain decisions, as has the respondents’ side done for opposing the petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

A. As to locus standi of the petitioner to invoke section 319 of the Code; Antulay Case & Lok Ram Case :

(a) Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. C.V.Nagesh, appearing for the private respondents preliminarily opposed the petition on the ground of lack of locus standi; learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on A.R.Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500 with equal vehemence, submitted that the doctrine of locus standi being alien to criminal jurisprudence, any person can set the criminal law in motion; he also presses into service another decision in Lok Ram vs. Nihal Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1892; the Apex Court at para 6 of its decision in Antulay’s Case observed as under:

“It is a well recognised principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be