Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 16501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA ON THE 20th OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10489 of 2024 BETWEEN:-
PANKAJ S/O SHRI GHANSHYAM DAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O: JAMA MASJID GALI AGAR MALWA HAAL MUKAM MALIKHEDI ROAD, SANSKAR SCHOOL KE PASS, AGAR MALWA DISTRICT AGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (BY SHRI PUSHPRAJ SINGH RATHORE - ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION TUKOGANJ, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Jitendra Bohare,Advocate General
The trial court has the power to implead a new accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. even after the prosecution has closed its case.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's orders impleading a new accused and allowing the prosecution to lead additional evidence after the prosecution had closed its case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court had the power to implead a new accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner's right to defense had not been closed.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in impleading a new accused after the prosecution had closed its case.2. Whether the petitioner's right to defense had been closed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the trial court to take cognizance against any other person and to implead him as an accused till the time of passing of the final judgment.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER
Heard.
By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 27.01.2024, 29.01.2024, 31.01.2024 and 16.02.2024 passed by the trial Court.
02. The record indicates that the petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence registered vide Crime No.86/2014 at Police Station Tukoganj, District Indore. Before the trial Court, the prosecution led its evidence and thereafter closed the same and the case was fixed on 24.01.2024 for 29.05.2024 for defence evidence. Thereafter, on 27.01.2024 an application was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for impleading one Nitin Atal as an accused to the case. The said application was considered and eventually allowed by the trial Court by order dated 31.01.2024 and cognizance was taken against him for offence punishable under Sections 294 and 323/34 of the IPC and summons were issued to him.
03. The first grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his right of defence has been closed by the trial Court. A perusal of the entire order-sheets of the trial Court does not show at any place that the right of the petitioner for his defence has been closed. The said right was granted to him by the trial Court by order dated 24.01.2024 which is still very much in existence. The right to lead defence evidence can be closed only by a specific order which is not the case in the present matter.
04. The second grievance of the petitioner is that by impleadment of a co-accused de novo trial would commence. The same is based only upon apprehension. The trial Court very much has the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against any other person and to implead him as an accused till the time of passing of the final judgment. The same has been done by the trial Court by order dated 31.01.2024. If there could be any grievance against the said order, it would be on part of the person who has been impleaded as a co-accused and not the petitioner. Even if proceedings are to be freshly conducted in view of impleadment of co-accused, the petitioner cannot challenge the same on the ground that the same would cause inconvenience to him. The proceedings of the trial Court are within the exercise of jurisdiction vested in it and merely by them it cannot be said that any right of the petitioner has been prejudiced or taken away. There is hence no need for passing any order as regards impleadment of the co-accused.
05. With the observations as aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
