ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2026 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1021 of 2025 in C.C.No.269 of 2019 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution before the trial Court in C.C. No.269 of 2019 seeking to array the wife and son of the existing accused as additional accused in the case. It is the case of the prosecution that during trial, the complainant (PW1) in his chief-examination specifically deposed about the presence and involvement of the proposed accused in the commission of the offence, and their names were also mentioned in the original complaint, though they were not charge-sheeted by the police. The petitioners/accused opposed the petition contending that there is no sufficient evidence against the proposed accused, that the petition is filed at a belated stage to pressurize them, and that their names were not included in the charge sheet due to lack of material. Upon hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the Court found that the presence and involvement of the proposed accused is prima facie established from the evidence of PW1 and their role in the counter case, and accordingly allowed the petition, directing that they be added as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the case. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard K. Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the trial court allowing the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of law and that there is no cogent or sufficient evidence to implicate the petitioners, who are merely the wife and son of the main accused and have been falsely roped in. He further submitted that the trial Court erred in relying solely on the untested chief-examination of PW1 without cross-examination or corroborative evidence, and wrongly inferred involvement merely because the petitioners were present as witnesses in the counter case. He contended that the charge sheet itself had exonerated them, and the subsequent attempt to array them as accused amounts to abuse of process of law, especially in light of delay and inconsistencies in the complaint. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has rightly exercised its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., based on the evidence available on record, particularly the deposition of PW1 indicating the presence and involvement of the petitioners in the offence. He contended that at the stage of invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., a prima facie satisfaction is sufficient, and detailed evaluation of evidence is not required. He further submitted that the presence of the petitioners at the scene and their role, as disclosed during trial, justify their addition as accused to ensure that no real culprit escapes trial. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the trial Court has allowed the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. primarily on the basis of the chief-examination of P.W.1. It is not in dispute that though the names of the proposed accused (accused Nos.2 and 3) were mentioned in the original complaint, the investigating agency, upon completion of investigation, did not find sufficient material against them and accordingly omitted their names from the charge sheet, proceeding only against accused No.1.

7. It is well se