N.SYAMASUNDARA NAIDU Vs. V.DAKSHINAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore, dtd. 24/2/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.9152 of 2021 in C.C.No.10 of 2016.

(2.) The gist of the allegations of the prosecution is that the property in Alandur village S.Nos.376/1B1 and 376/1C1, totally ad-measuring to 3 Acres 76 Cents belongs to N.Syamasundara Naidu, the de-facto complainant, he having purchased the same by a registered sale deed, dtd. 23/5/2012. Taking advantage of the fact that he was absent in the village and was living in Tirupathi, the first and second accused entered into a conspiracy and so as to grab the said property, forged a sale agreement in respect of the said property and on the strength of the sale agreement, filed O.S.No.130 of 2014 and also tried to trespass into the property and when the de-facto complainant came to know of the same, they also threatened to do away his life. On the above allegations, a case was registered in Crime No.42 of 2014 by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (ALGSC), Vellore and a Final Report was filed proposing the accused guilty of certain offences. Thereafter, upon the case being taken on file as C.C.No.10 of 2016, on 18/2/2016, the learned Magistrate framed the charges under Sec. 120(B), 419, 420, 423, 447, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and the Trial is being proceeded with. P.W.1, de-facto complainant namely, N.Syamasundara Naidu, was also permitted to appoint a learned Counsel to assist the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The stage of the case is that the examination of the other witnesses are over and the matter is posted for examination of the Investigating Officer. At this stage, the petitioner/de-facto complainant filed above Crl.M.P.No.9152 of 2021 under Sec. 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to frame additional charges under Ss. 34, 109, 467 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The said petition was resisted by both the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the case as well as the Police by filing separate counter statements. By the order impugned in the Revision, the Trial Court considered Sec. 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in view of the Sec. 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held that the private pleader, who was appointed, cannot conduct an independent prosecution himself and therefore, he had no locus to plead on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment in B.Janakiramaiah Chetty Vs. A.K.Parthasarathi2002 Cr. LJ 4062 (AP) and the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India in Rekha Murarka Vs. The State of West Bengal (2020) 2 SCC 474 (Criminal Appeal No.1727 of 2019) and held that within the bounds of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is open for the private pleader to put-forth his written arguments post completion of evidence and learned Public Prosecutor 's arguments and held that a petition to alter the charges cannot be filed at this stage.