Srinivas Rao vs State of Karnataka and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The petitioner is said to be the husband of respondent 2. The petitioner and the respondent are estranged. However, the house which the petitioner had taken on rent was continued in the occupation of respondent 2. It is alleged that respondents 3 and 4 are said to have trespassed into the house of the complainant-respondent 2 and have intimidated her and had tried to commit an offence after having trespassed into the house. It is in that background that a complaint was lodged against respondents 3 and 4. During the course of trial as against those respondents, it was brought to light that the present petitioner was involved in some manner. It is on that footing that an application u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Cr.P.C'' for brevity) was made by the second respondent and it has been allowed. The Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under the very provisions under which respondents 3 and 4 were sought to be brought to book. The petitioner is before this Court contending that going by the allegations in the complaint, there is no case at all against the present petitioner nor in the application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C., that no allegations are made against the present petitioner which would constitute an offence punishable under the several sections which are invoked and seeks to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and Another, , to the effect that the power u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. should be applied sparingly and in unusual and rare circumstances and that the present petitioner having been arrayed as an accused, is therefore, contrary to the law laid down by this Court and would seek that the proceedings against the present petitioner be quashed. Insofar as the relief prayed for before this Court is concerned, the same is premature. In that, the petitioner no doubt has been arrayed as an accused at the instance of the complainant before the Court below. The case is being tried as a warrant case. Sub-section (4) of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that the proceedings in respect of a person who is arrayed as an accused during the course of the trial, the proceedings shall commence afresh insofar as the said person is concerned. This would apply to the petitioner as well and if proceedings should commence afresh against the present petitioner, it would be open for him to demonstrate before the Trial Court that no case whatsoever can be made out against him in the complaint or subsequently by way of an application u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. and the Court below would have to consider such circumstances in discharging the present petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner is armed with the remedies in law, this Court interfering at this stage, would be out of place. Insofar as the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, as the section is plain, there is no need for any authority to expand on the scope of the provision. Therefore, it is irrelevant. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioner.