The court held that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., prior notice to a proposed accused is not required before summoning, provided there is strong prima facie evidence against them.

ORDER :

P.Velmurugan, J.

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order dated 09.09.2022 made in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2019 in C.C.No.237 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur now transferred and pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and set aside the same as illegal.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in Crl.M.P.No.2338 of 2019, wherein the learned Magistrate, upon considering the petition filed by the prosecution, invoked Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and directed the summoning of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, the sitting MLA of Tiruchendur, as an additional accused in Crime No.520 of 2009.

2. The facts, as culled from the records, reveal the following:-

2.1. The defacto complainant, Mr.Damodaran, a member of the ADMK party, resides at Peyanvilai. Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, a member of the DMK party, is the sitting MLA of the Tiruchendur constituency. In December 2009, a by-election was announced for the Tiruchendur constituency following a vacancy. On the evening of 06.12.2009, at around 8: 00 p.m., the defacto complainant, along with his associates Arasaguru, Sivaprakash, and Suresh Kumar, were engaged in canvassing at the ADMK election booth at Peyanvilai. At that time, Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, along with certain other individuals, arrived at the booth to canvass votes for the DMK, creating a confrontation with the defacto complainant and his group. The defacto complainant, in turn, displayed signs encouraging voters to support ADMK, leading to a commotion and a physical altercation.

2.2. According to the defacto complainant, Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, instigated the assault by engaging the accused, who were allegedly armed with deadly weapons, to attack him and his associates, and cause damage to their election booth. The defacto complainant immediately approached the Arumuganeri Police Station, where a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 323, 324, and 506(ii) IPC, against Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, and 15 other individuals. However, following investigation, the name of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan was removed from the police report.

2.3. Subsequently, the prosecution, based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking the inclusion of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan as an additional accused, asserting that there was sufficient evidence to implicate him in the commission of the offense.

2.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the materials on record, allowed the petition in Crl.M.No.2338 of 2019 in C.C.No.237 of 2010 on 09.09.2022 and ordered the summoning of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan as an additional accused.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2022, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

4. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been added as one of the accused by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have considered that a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed without strong, cogent, and valid material and allowing such a petition casually would ultimately affect the rights of the other accused who are already facing trial. Furthermore, the fresh summoning of the accused would result in an unnecessary delay in the trial. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, before passing the order to implead the petitioner as an accused, the petitioner was not put on notice about the filing of the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and was not given an opportunity to be heard. It is necessary that, before being added as an accu