LAGUMAKKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.2 having lodged a complaint dated 28.04.2009, respondent No.1 registered FIR in Crime No.60/2009 for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 506, 143 r/w Section 149 IPC, against seven persons, inclusive of the petitioner. After investigation, charge sheet having been filed, name of the petitioner was not included. Charges having been framed by the learned Trial Magistrate, as against accused Nos.1 to 6, trial has begun. The prosecution having examined PWs.1 to 3 and an application having been filed by learned prosecutor, to add the petitioner ie., mother-in- law of the victim, as accused No.7, upon consideration, was allowed on 30.12.2011 and the petitioner was directed to be arrayed as accused No.7. Revision Petition filed having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 31.08.2012, this petition was filed to quash the said orders and to dismiss the aforesaid application filed before the learned Trial Judge.

(2.) Dr.R.Ramachandran, learned advocate, contended that there being no prima facie evidence against the petitioner, who was sought to be included as an additional accused, learned Magistrate has committed illegality in passing the order dated 30.12.2011 and that the learned Sessions Judge has also committed illegality in mechanically affirming the said order. Learned counsel submitted that name of the petitioner having not appeared in any prosecution evidence other than FIR and there being no incriminating material appearing against the petitioner, her inclusion, based on the hear-say version of PWs.1 to 3 is illegal. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the decisions in Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of U.P, 1959 AIR(SC) 1012 Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010 AIR(SCW) 7049 R.V.Uttamchand,1874 11 BomHCR 120; Ganakanta Das Vs. State of Assam, 1990 CrLJ 219 and Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2014 3 SCC 92, contended that there being lack of any evidence appearing from the prosecution record as against the petitioner, the impugned orders call for interference in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Sri.Chetan Desai, learned HCGP, on the other hand submitted that the name of the petitioner appears not only in FIR but also in the statements recorded by the police and that her role / overt acts has been spoken to by PWs.1 to 3. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate having found from the evidence, that the petitioner, not arrayed as an accused, appears to have committed the offence, is required to be tried together with the other accused, passed order dated 30.12.2011. Learned counsel made submission in support of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and learned Magistrate in their respective orders, noticed supra.