The dismissal of a complainant's application to add accused was upheld, emphasizing the need for procedural compliance and the informant's right to be heard in criminal proceedings.

ORDER

An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against three persons other than the accused was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the defacto complainant, who filed the application, came up under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Initially, crime was registered against four persons based on a reference of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., but after investigation, final report was submitted only against one among the accused persons named in the FIR ie. the 2nd one and a separate report was submitted seeking to delete and remove the names of accused No.1, 3 and 4 in the FIR from the array of the accused.

3. It is thereafter, charge was framed and trial was commenced against the 2nd named accused in the FIR, who is the sole accused in the final report submitted. The report submitted for deleting and removing the names of accused No.1, 3 and 4 in the FIR came to the notice of the defacto complainant only at the time of trial of the case. As such, he preferred an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the trial stage to proceed against the above said persons as additional accused.

4. Admittedly, the report submitted by the investigating officer for deleting the names of accused No.1, 3 and 4 is not a report as envisaged under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and no notice was issued to the first informant, without which the report was accepted by deleting them from the array of accused. The final report submitted against accused No.2 (sole accused) was proceeded and trial was commenced. It is at that time, the defacto complainant came to know about the report seeking removal of accused No.1, 3 and 4 named in the FIR and its acceptance by the Magistrate.

5. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Suman Chakravarthy that the practice of submitting such report for deleting accused person either at the interim stage of investigation or at its final stage is followed throughout Kerala and so far nobody has raised any legal objection to the said practice. Since the question requires elaborate consideration, this Court sought the help of an Amicus Curiae and the learned senior counsel Sri.P.Vijayabhanu expressed his willingness. Accordingly, it was ordered.

6. From Section 154 to Section 173 under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., there is no provision for submitting any report by the officer in charge of police station/investigating officer except under Section 157 [Section 158 and 173(3)], 170, 173(2) and 173(8) Cr.P.C. At least three modalities were incorporated under Section 157 Cr.P.C. regarding the further steps to be taken by the officer in charge of the police station, on an information received or otherwise, regarding the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 Cr.P.C. to investigate. When the officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not below the rank as the state Government may by general or special order prescribe in that behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for discovery and arrest of the offender. The said provision is subject to two exceptions in the form of two provisos. Clause (a) to the pro