Petitioner challenged an order declining cognizance against co-accused in a private complaint regarding property fraud. The High Court granted liberty to apply for addition of accused during trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C and dismissed the revision.
Liberty granted to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C or 358 BNSS Act during the trial to add accused 3 to 7.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2024 & Crl.M.P.No.7014 of 2024
R.Kalvarayan
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents/Accused 1 to 7
Prayer: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the order dated 16.08.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.311 of 2023 in C.C.No.59 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kallakurichi and set aside the same by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed seeking to quash the o rder
dated 16.08.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.311 of 2023 in C.C.No.59 of 2023 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kallakurichi.
Page 1 of 4
Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2024
2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the accused persons who
are the respondents having colluded with each other executed a bogus sale deed dated 18.05.2009 in respect of the property purchased by the petitioner and attempting to evict the petitioner from the said property pursuant to which, the petitioner made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Thiagadurgam on 13.08.2020. Since no action was taken on the same, the petitioner had filed a private complaint against the respondents in Crl.M.P.311 of 2023 before the trial court for the alleged offence under sections 120(b),467, 468, 420 of IPC which was taken on file by the trial court by taking cognizance only against the A1 & A2 while the trial court had declined to taken cognizance against A3 to A7. Aggrieved by which, the present Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court without going into the merits of the case may grant liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the trial court during the course of trial as against the accused persons who are not taken cognizance by the trial court and the same shall be considered by the trial court.
Page 2 of 4
Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2024
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials
available on record.
5. The revision petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the
ground that no cognizance has been taken against the co~accused persons/respondents 3 to 7. However, on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that while cognizance has been taken against the A1 & A2, there is no bar for the trial court to take cognizance during the course of trial if any ingredients of offence is made out as against the other accused persons against whom cognizance has not been taken. Therefore, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and without interfering with
the impugned order grants liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under section 319 of Cr.P.C or 358 of the BNSS Act during the course of trial and if any such application is filed, the trial court shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.04.2024
rli
Page 3 of 4
Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2024
M.DHANDAPANI.J,
rli
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kallakurichi.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.750 of 2024
29.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in granting liberty to the petitioner to seek addition of accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C/358 BNSS Act during trial without interference in the impugned order decl
Whether a bar exists to the trial court taking cognizance against accused 3 to 7 who were not initially included in the private complaint.
If the high court dismissed the revision, what relief, if any, was granted to the petitioner.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Kalvarayan
Velmurugan
Varalakshmi
Santhi
Amudha
Ayyappan
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
