The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the discretion of the court to call the real culprit to face trial based on the material collected by the prosecution.

1. The revision petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide impugned order dated 04.09.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi and challenging the legality of the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

2. The second respondent herein had lodged a complaint on the file of Vadakadu Police Station, Pudukkottai District, against Gangadharan, s/o.Paulsamy (the revision petitioner herein); Palsamy, s/o.Raman; Karuppaiah, s/o.Raman and Palanichamy, s/o.Raman, on 06.05.2013 with regard to the commission of the offences which took place on 30.04.2013. The first respondent, on receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, has registered a case in Cr.No.51 of 2013, on 06.05.2013, for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) I.P.C.

3. The first respondent, after investigation, has filed the charge sheet/final report, against A.2, A.3 and A.4, thus:

Accused (as per Charge sheet)	Charges
A.1	U/s. 294(b), 326, 506(2) I.P.C.
A.2	U/s.323 and 506(2) I.P.C.
A.3	U/s.326 and 506(2) I.P.C.

and left out A.1 (in the F.I.R.) namely, Gangadharan, s/o.Palsamy.

4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, while taking cognizance of the offences, found that on perusal of the final report, prima facie case has been made out against the left out accused, namely, Gangadharan also and therefore, arrayed him as A.4 for the commission of the offence under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) I.P.C, vide order dated 27.06.2014.

5. The revision petitioner challenging the said order, filed Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2014 before this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court has found that while arraying the revision petitioner as A.4, the trial Court has not recorded the reasons with regard to the prima facie materials available and therefore, set aside the impugned order therein and remanded the matter once again for passing fresh orders by giving reasons.

6. The trial Court, on remand, has passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2014, arraying the revision petitioner as A.4 for the reason that the wound certificate relating to the second respondent/defacto complainant as well as the contents of the F.I.R would disclose that he has also participated in the commission of the offences and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/A.4 has filed the present revision.

7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the first respondent after fair and proper investigation, has found that nothing has been made against the revision petitioner and therefore, left him out from the array of the accused and the trial Court without appreciating the scope of remand passed by this Court in Crl.R.C(MD)No.277 of 2014, has committed a grave error in arraying him as an additional accused/A.4 and prays for intervention.

8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent would submit that no doubt, the revision petitioner was arrayed as A.1 in the F.I.R which came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent and on investigation, the first respondent found that no incriminating materials have been made available against him and therefore, laid the charge sheet/final report against the remaining accused and on the basis of the impugned order, his case is being prosecuted against the revision petitioner also.

9. The learned Counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that in the F.I.R. in Cr.No.51 of 2013, it has been clearly stated that the revision petitioner by abusing him, made an attempt to cut with an aruval and also cut him and consequently, he suffered an injury on the left hand thumb and A.2/Palsamy cut with an aruval on the right hand wrist and he has fallen down and the wo