- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30507 CRL.P No. 4902 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4902 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR G S/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.97, JNANABHARATINAGARA BDA LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK AMMA ASHRAMA, ULLALA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056 2. SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A NO.97, JNANABHARATINAGARA BDA LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK AMMA ASHRAMA, ULLALA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056 3. SMT NEELAMMA W/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.97, JNANABHARATINAGARA BDA LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK AMMA ASHRAMA, ULLALA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056 4. SRI. RAJASHEKAR S/O GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/A NO.97, JNANABHARATINAGARA BDA LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30507 CRL.P No. 4902 of 2025 AMMA ASHRAMA, ULLALA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056 5. KUSUMALATHA W/O GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A NO.97, JNANABHARATINAGARA BDA LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK AMMA ASHRAMA, ULLALA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 056 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI: MURALIDHAR S.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY RAMANAGARA WOMEN POLICE STATION RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 2. SMT ABHILASHA K.R. W/O SRI NAVEEN KUMAR AND D/O LATE SRI RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A KAYISOPPINA STREET NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE WARD NO.8, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA - 562159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGESHEET IN CC.NO.1166/2021 AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ABOVE CASE PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AS PLACED IN ANNEXURE-B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30507 CRL.P No. 4902 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC No.1166 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry of Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submitted that petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who were initially arrayed as accused during the course of investigation, were ultimately dropped from the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer on account of absence of any incriminating material against them. Despite their exclusion, during the course of trial, the learned Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the complainant, has issued notice to petitioner Nos.4 and 5. Aggrieved by such issuance of notice, not only petitioner Nos.4 and 5 but the remaining petitioners have also approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30507 CRL.P No. 4902 of 2025 3. At this stage, it becomes necessary to advert to the scheme and object underlying Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The said provision is a special enabling power vested in the Criminal Court, which authorises it to proceed against any person, though not originally shown as an accused, if in the course of inquiry or trial, it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence for which they could be tried together with the other accused. The legislative intent behind this provision is to ensure that no person who appears to be guilty of an offence is allowed to go scot-free merely because of inadvertence, error, or even a deliberate omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in not arraying them as accused in the charge sheet. The object of Section 319 is, therefore, to uphold the paramount principle that the real culprits should not escape trial, and that the truth should emerge through a complete and comprehensive adjudication of all those who appear to be involved in the crime. 4. It is well-settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power under Section 319 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30507 CRL.P No. 4902 of 2025 Cr.P.C. is indeed discretionary and extraordinary in nature, but at the same time, it is to be exercised sparingly and only when cogent evidence surfaces during the course of trial, disclosing prima facie involvement of a person not already facing trial. The jurisdiction is not to be invoked on the basis of mere suspicion, conjectures, or vague allegations, but only where the evidence recorded gives rise to a reasonable satisfaction of the Court regarding the complicity of such person. 5. In the present case, what emerges is that the learned Magistrate has, at this preliminary stage, only issued notice to petitioner Nos.4 and 5 in order to afford them an opportunity to respond before arriving at a final decision as to their arraignment as additional accused. This Court is of the considered view that such issuance of notice cannot be construed as a conclusive determination under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are at full liberty to submit their objections before the Magistrate, and it is incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to consider such objections objectively, in accordance with the settled principles of law, and pass a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30507 CRL.P No. 4902 of 2025 reasoned order as to whether petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are indeed liable to be tried along with the other accused. 6. If, after such consideration, the Trial Court passes any adverse order summoning petitioner Nos.4 and 5 as additional accused, liberty is expressly reserved to them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings before this Court. Until then, the petition filed at this premature stage challenging the mere issuance of notice under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2