R. AMARAVATHI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11.7.2014, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation for the petitioner. The matter was again listed today. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Hence, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in : (2013) 3 SCC 721 [K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka], if the petitioner do not appear, there is no necessity for the Court, which is hearing the matter, to issue warrant for special notice or appoint any Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the petitioner. The Court is empowered to deal with the matter on merits and dispose of the same. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the defacto complainant and the respondents 2 and 3 are the accused. The petitioner has preferred a complaint before the first respondent police on 21.4.2004 and based on the same, a case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A), 313, 406, 506(i) IPC and 4 of I.D. Act in Crime No. 5 of 2004 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Poonamallee has taken the case on file in C.C. No. 3523 of 2004 and the same is posted for judgment. While so, the petitioner filed a petition Section 319 Cr.P.C. to include the names of the accused 3 and 4 and the same was dismissed stating that the case stand posted for judgment and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate submitted that the case is posted for judgment and the petitioner in order to drag on the proceedings has filed the present petition. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the petition.