ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dated 02.07.2019 in CMP No.1635 of 2015 by including the name of the petitioner as A2 in the final report and issuing summons for the appearance of the petitioner.

2.The 2nd respondent gave a complaint on 11.12.2014 to the effect that he paid a sum of rupees Seventeen Lakhs to A1 who is said to have promised the 2nd respondent that he will get a medical seat for the daughter of the 2nd respondent in a private medical college. It is further alleged in the complaint that A1 went back on his promise and was evading the repayment of the amount to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was attempting to get in contact with A1 through phone and no money is said to have been repaid to the 2nd respondent. Till this stage, the petitioner was nowhere in the scene. It is alleged in the complaint that on 14.11.2014, the 2nd respondent received a call from two mobile numbers and the caller identified himself as Raja and that he is an Advocate by profession. It is further alleged that the said Raja guaranteed the petitioner that he will stand as a security and will ensure the repayment of money to the 2nd respondent and further asked 2nd respondent to come to his office on 25.11.2014 at 7 PM and receive the amount. The 2nd respondent in spite of waiting for the repayment of the amount, did not receive any amount and he called the petitioner over phone. It is alleged that the petitioner at that point of time had abused the 2nd respondent and threatened him with dire consequences.

3.On the basis of the above complaint, an FIR came to be registered by the 1st respondent on 18.12.2014 in Crime No.111 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506 (i) of IPC. In this FIR, only the name of Srinivasan (A1) was shown as an accused.

4.The 2nd respondent filed a petition before the Court below under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 18.02.2015 on the ground that the name of the petitioner was not added in the FIR and that his name should be added as an accused. It is not known as to how such a petition is maintainable even before a final report is filed. However, the Court below had directed the respondent police to enquire upon this petition and file a report before the Court.

5.The respondent police conducted the investigation and filed the report before the Court below on 15.06.2019 stating that there are absolutely no materials as against the petitioner to add as an accused in the present case and therefore, his name has been dropped and the report is only filed against A1 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

6.After the final report was filed before the Court below by the

1st respondent, the Court below issued notice to the 2nd respondent informing that the name of the petitioner has been dropped from the final report. Thereafter, an order came to be passed on 02.07.2019 in CMP.1635 of 2015 adding the petitioner as an accused in the final report and issuing process to the petitioner.

7.Heard Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.Sundaravadanam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

2nd respondent.

8.The order passed by the Court below is attacked mainly on the ground that the Court below ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 of Cr.P.C since, there was no evidence before the Court below as the trial is yet to commence in this case. It is further submitted that there was no protest petition filed on the side of the 2nd respondent and in spite of the same, the Court below has revived an application which was filed in the course of investigation under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and order has been passed in this application. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of the Court below is on the face of it illegal.

9.The procedure adopted by the Court below in adding the petitioner as an accuse