The court upheld the rejection of an application to include an additional accused due to insufficient evidence, affirming the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC despite the availability of revision remedies.

With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, the matter was heard on 22.08.2024 at length and today the order is being pronounced.

2. By the instant petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is assailing the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the court below turning down the request made by the petitioner-complainant for including the name of respondent No.2 in the array of accused. Assertion made before the court below was that despite the name of respondent No.2 being disclosed in the written complaint made to the police, his name was wittingly dropped and left out from the array of accused, although he was involved in the crime and the written complaint did contain his name, despite that the investigating officer even after collecting the material did not submit the charge-sheet against respondent No.2 whereas there were adequacy of material showing active role played by him in the alleged crime, but deliberately his name was left out.

3 .The encapsulated facts, which would lead to a decisive conclusion, are that the petitioner made a written-information regarding commission of cognizable offence on 20.09.2016 at 11.30 a.m., but the Station House Officer did not register the FIR forthwith as per the requirement of Section 154(1) of CrPC. After receipt of complaint in writing, the-then SHO before registering the FIR, conducted a preliminary enquiry and then registered the FIR at 19.42 hours. vide Crime No.94/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 506, 34 of IPC. As per the petitioner, the-then SHO instead of first registering the FIR as per the requirement of law, contorted the factual aspects on his own, manipulated the incident and made accused to the persons of his own choice leaving out the name of respondent No.2, whereas the written-information made to the police did contain the name of respondent No.2. As per the petitioner, astoundingly, rather making the petitioner an informant/complainant, the-then SHO made himself the complainant. Moreover, it was incumbent upon the-then SHO to register the FIR and supply copy thereof to the petitioner, but it was not done and even signature of the petitioner was not taken. As per the petitioner, albeit, the-then SHO appointed one Head Constable namely Shri Gopal Babu as Investigating Officer, but he was not allowed to investigate the matter and the-then SHO took all investigation in his hands, became first-informant; conducted investigation; showed vested interest in the matter and recorded the statement of persons called during the course of investigation. Thereafter, a writ petition bearing W.P.No.6987/2016 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for conducting a fair enquiry and for including the name of respondent No.2 in the array of accused, but later-on on 02.01.2017 the said petition was withdrawn with a liberty to move an application under Section 190 of CrPC.

3.1 On 22.07.2017, the application was submitted under Section 190 of CrPC, which was decided by the court vide order dated 28.01.2022 thereby rejected the application on the anvil that it was inappropriate to make anybody else as accused at that stage and observed that after recording the evidence, the court would consider the request, if any, made for impleading anybody as accused and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to make any such application at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, the petitioner was examined as PW-3 on 29.07.2022. On the same day i.e. 29.07.2022 the petitioner moved an application under Section 319 of CrPC, which has been decided by the impugned order dated 01.02.2023. Aggrieved with the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

4 .The challenge is founded mainly on the ground that when the written complaint was made by the petitioner to the police, it was obligatory for the-then SHO to have registered the FIR under Section 154 of CrPC, but instead of doing so, he conducted a preliminary enquir