The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strong and cogent evidence to add accused persons under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order passed by the learned First Additional Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet in CMP.No.3619 of 2014 in CC.No.67 of 2013 dated 31.03.2015 and further direct the learned First Additional Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ulundurpet to proceed with the 319 Cr.P.C petition after issuing of summon to the respondents 2 to 5 in accordance with law.)

1. This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C in order to array respondents 2 to 4 herein as accused in the case.

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. He lodged a complaint before the respondent alleging that on 18.07.2012, when the Revenue Inspector and the Village Administrative Officer were conducting the enquiry with regard to running a brick kiln without licence, the petitioner was attacked by six named accused persons and he was also threatened with dire consequences. The complaint was registered in Cr.No.259 of 2012 and upon investigation, a final report came to be filed before the Court below as against these accused persons for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC. The charges were framed and the case was at the stage of trial. The petitioner, who is the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1. During the course of examination, the defacto complainant, namely, the petitioner made a statement to the effect that when he went for enquiry on 18.07.2012 at about 4.00 p.m to the Revenue Office, the Village Administrative Officer and the Revenue Inspector informed the other accused persons that it was the petitioner who had complained against the accused persons about the illegal brickklin that was run by them and hearing the same, the accused persons attacked the petitioner. The petitioner virtually made an allegation that the proposed accused persons instigated the other accused persons to commit the crime.

3. Based on this statement made during the examination-in- chief, the prosecution filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C in order to add respondents 2 to 5 as accused persons. This petition was dismissed by the Court below by an order dated 31.03.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

4. Ms. Preethi Prasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Court below went wrong in dismissing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C and the learned counsel submitted that the materials available makes out a case more than a prima-facie case. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had made a categorical statement when he was examined as witness-P.W.1 and the said statement itself makes out a case for adding the respondents 2 to 5 as the accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even at the time of giving the complaint to the respondent police, the petitioner had referred to the overt act committed by the respondents 2 to 5 who had instigated other accused persons to commit the crime.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate her submissions brought to the notice of this Court, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others - (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92 and Periyasami and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy - (2019) 2 MLJ (Crl) 191 (SC)

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made his submissions in support of the case of the petitioner and submitted that the Court below ought to have add respondents 2 to 5 as accused persons in exercise of its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record.

8. It is seen from the records that at the time, when the complaint was given by the petitioner to the respondent police, the petitioner ha