Masani v. The State Rep.By the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The revision challenges the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam, Tiruppur District in C.C.No.45 of 2021.

¶2The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently submit that the learned Magistrate, without even going into the report submitted by the police and merely relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 at the time of trial, has proceeded to include the petitioner as the third accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is contrary to law. According to the learned counsel, there must be a prima facie case against the petitioner before including him as an additional accused.

¶3The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that a reading of the chief examination of P.W.1 would disclose the commission of the offence and that the learned Magistrate has recorded reasons as to why the trial has to proceed against the additional accused.

¶4I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.

¶5On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that she has spoken about the overt act of one Masani. The learned Magistrate had also put a Court question and found that the said Masani was trading along with A1 and A2. The learned Magistrate, by referring to the FIR as well as the complaint given by P.W.1, has also found that the name of the said Masani finds place both in the FIR as well as in the complaint. However, his name was omitted at the time of filing of the charge sheet.

¶6In such circumstances, while looking into Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it provides that "where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed". Therefore, from the above provision, it is clear that if there is prima facie material available against a person who has not been arrayed as an accused, the learned Magistrate is competent to proceed against such person.

¶7In the present case, the prima facie material relied upon by the learned Magistrate is the reference to the said person, namely Mr. Masani, in the complaint as well as in the FIR. Only in such circumstances and based on the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to include the said Masani as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶8This Court finds that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is in consonance with the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam, Tiruppur District in C.C.No.45 of 2021.

¶9Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. 04-03-2026 skr Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

¶1Learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam, Tiruppur District.

¶2The Sub-Inspector of Police, Komaralingam Police Station, Komaralingam, Tiruppur District.

¶3The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN J. skr

04-03-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. Masani Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Komaralingam Police Station, Komaralingam, Tiruppur District. Cr.No.40 of 2021. 2.Kulanthaivel 3.Kaliyammal Respondent(s) PRAYER To call for the records and set aside the same in order dated 13.11.2025 made in CC.No.45 of 2021 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Madathukulam, Tirupur District and allow this Cr.RC. For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Sivakumar For R1 : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)