ORDER :

This criminal revision case has been filed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.4749 of 2019 dated 24.10.2019 in C.C.No.7243 of 2018 by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The 1st respondent police registered a case against the 2nd respondent for the offence under Sections 448, 294(b) 323 and 506(i) IPC based on the complaint given by the petitioner/defacto complainant. After investigation, they laid charge sheet against the 2nd respondent before XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.7243 of 2018 and after completing the formalities, framed the charges and the trial commenced.

3. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution during trial, totally 5 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5. Out of the 4 witnesses, the defacto complainant was examined in chief as P.W.1. At that state, the petitioner/ defacto complainant filed a petition before the magistrate invoking Section 319 read with Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to implead the 3rd and 4th respondents as A2 and A3 and the said petition was taken on file in M.P.4749 of 2019 and after enquiry, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the defacto complainant has filed the present revision before this court.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant would submit that the defacto complainant in her complaint itself has stated that the 3rd and 4th respondents also trespassed into her house along with the 2nd respondent. Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the defacto complainant has reiterated the same. Whereas, the learned Magistrate without considering the same, dismissed the petition filed by the defacto complainant seeking to implead the 3rd and 4th respondents as accused. He would further submit that totally 5 witness were examined and none of them were cross examined. Further, the defacto complainant in her chief examination has clearly stated the names of the 3rd and 4th respondents and deposed that the 3rd and 4th respondents were also present along with the 2nd respondent on the date of offence. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate warrants interference of this Court and that the revision may be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that there is no specific allegation against the proposed accused/3rd and 4th respondents and there is no prima facie case is made out against them. Even in the complaint and in the evidence, there is no specific allegation against the 3rd and 4th respondents except the fact that they accompanied the 2nd respondent/accused. Therefore, the trial court rightly gone into the entire aspects and since there was no prima facie allegation and no materials against the proposed respondents/3rd and 4th respondents to implead them as accused, dismissed the petition filed by the defacto complainant. The learned counsel by placing reliance of the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would submit that mere mentioning of name of a person is not sufficient and there must be a prima facie allegation or material to implead him as an accused.

1. (2019) 4 SCC 342 in Periyasami and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy

2. (2019) 4 SCC 556 in Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

3. (2019) 4 SCC 329 in Dev Wati and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another

4. (2017) 7 SCC 706 in Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan

5. (2017) 16 SCC 226 in S.ohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others.

The learned Counsel would further submit that the power of trial court for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not an automatic one. It is the discretionary power of the trial Judge to find whether there are strong material evidence available and whether the situation warrants. Without any allegation or materials, no one can be impleaded as an accused invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. He would reiterate that the