SHRI MOHAMMADRAFIQ S/O. ABDULGANI SHEIKH vs SHRI AJIT S/O ASHOK KULKARNI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD



TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T


CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103471 OF 2023

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101407 OF 2023,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101408 OF 2023,
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103474 OF 2023.

IN CRL.P No.103471/2023

BETWEEN:

SHRI AJIT S/O. ASHOK KULKARNI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DISTRIBUTOR OF LYF MOBILES,
R/O. SHRI RAM AGENCY, SHRI SAI COMPLEX,
VIJAYAPUR ROAD, NEAR VRL OFFICE,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.









…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADV. FOR
SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI MOHAMMADRAFIQ S/O. ABDULGANI SHAIKH,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR OF
NEW SHUFI MOBILES,
R/O. ASHOK CIRCLE, JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

2. JILANI BAHADOOR AHAMMAD SHAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DARGA COLONY,
NEAR DR. KADLEWAD HOSPITAL,
MAIGUR ROAD, JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.


Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1;

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


SRI AKARSH S. MITTALKOD, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION NO.5042/2022, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION,
PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, AT JAMKHANDI, DATED
21.09.2022, CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, IN C.C.NO.489/2018, DATED
31.03.2022 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.


IN CRL.P NO. 101407/2023

BETWEEN:

SHRI MOHAMMADRAFIQ
S/O. ABDULGANI SHEIKH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PROPRIETOR OF NEW
SHUFI MOBILES, ASHOK CIRCLE,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT,
PIN-587301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI AJIT S/O. ASHOK KULKARNI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DISTRIBUTOR OF LYF MOBILES,
SHRI RAM AGENCY, SHRI SAI COMPLEX,
VIJAYAPUR ROAD, NEAR VRL OFFICE,
TQ. JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT,
PIN-587301.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADV. FOR
SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.489/2018 (ARISING OUT OF
P.C.NO.79/2018) AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC JAMAKHANDI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023



IN CRL.P NO. 101408/2023

BETWEEN:

SHRI MOHAMMADRAFIQ
S/O. ABDULGANI SHEIKH,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: PROPRIETOR OF NEW SHUFI MOBILES,
ASHOK CIRCLE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587301

...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKESH S HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI AJIT S/O. ASHOK KULKARNI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: DISTRIBUTOR OF LYF MOBILES,
SHRI RAM AGENCY,
SHRI SAI COMPLEX, VIJAYAPUR ROAD,
NEAR VRL OFFICE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT, PIN-587301.

...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADV. FOR
SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.482/2018 (ARISING OUT OF
P.C.NO.80/2018) AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC JAMAKHANDI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.


IN CRL.P NO. 103474/2023

BETWEEN:

SHRI. AJIT S/O. ASHOK KULKARNI,
AGE: 51 YEARS,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


OCC: DISTRIBUTOR OF LYF MOBILES,
R/O. SHRI RAM AGENCY, SHRI SAI COMPLEX,
VIJAYAPUR ROAD, NEAR VRL OFFICE,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADV. FOR
SRI HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. MOHAMMADRAFIQ
S/O. ABDULGANI SHAIKH,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: PROPRIETOR OF NEW SHUFI MOBILES,
R/O. ASHOK CIRCLE,
JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

2. SHRI JILANI BAHADOORAHAMMAD SHAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. DARGA COLONY,
NEAR DR. KADLEWAD HOSPITAL,
MAIGUR ROAD, JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587301.

...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI AKARSH S. MITTALKOD, ADV. FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL
REVISION PETITION NO.5043/2022, DISMISSING THE REVISION
PETITION, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, AT JAMKHANADI,
DATED 17.09.2022, CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, IN C.C.NO.482/2018,
DATED 31.03.2022, PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED U/S.319 OF
CR.P.C., TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


ORAL ORDER
PER:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Criminal Petition No.101407/2023 is filed by the
petitioner seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.489/2018 (arising out of P.C.No.79/2018) pending on
the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi,
registered for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Criminal Petition
No.103474/2023 is filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking
to set aside the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition
No.5043/2022 by the learned I Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bagalkot, to sit at Jamkhandi, dismissing the revision
petition filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed
by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, in
C.C.No.482/2018, dated 31.03.2022.

2. Criminal Petition No.101407/2023 and Criminal
Petition No.101408/2023 are filed by the petitioner/accused
No.1 seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.Nos.489/2018 and 482/2018, pending on the file of the
learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, for the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act').

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell
are as under;
One Sri.Ajit Ashok Kulkarni, filed two private complaints
in PCR Nos.79/2018 and 80/2018 (C.C.Nos.482/2018 and
489/2018), under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against respondent
No.1/Sri.Mohammadrafiq S/o. Abdulgani Shaikh for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, on the ground that
the complainant and the accused were dealing in the mobile
business by selling mobile phones and the complainant was a
distributor of LYF mobile phones, having a shop in Soy
Complex, near VRL Office, Vijayapura Road, Jamkhandi, in the
name and style of Sri Ram Agency. Hence, the complainant and
the accused were well acquainted with each other for several
years. Accordingly, the accused requested the complainant to
supply LYF mobile phones worth Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly,
the complainant supplied the LYF mobile phones. In
consideration of the said transaction, the accused issued a
cheque bearing No.017868, dated 07.02.2018, for a sum of

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


Rs.1,50,000/-, drawn on Bank of India, Jamkhandi Branch, and
another cheque bearing No.017869, dated 07.02.2018, for a
sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, drawn on the same branch. On the
advise of the accused, the complainant presented both the
cheques for encashment before IDBI Bank, Jamkhandi Branch.
However, both the cheques were returned with the shara
'Insufficient Funds' in the account of the accused. Hence, the
complainant issued a legal notice to the accused calling upon
him to pay the amounts due under the cheques. As the accused
failed to pay the amounts due under the cheques, the
complainant presented the private complaints.

4. During the course of the trial, it was revealed that
the cheques bearing Nos.017868 and 017869 stood in the
name of the proposed accused No.2, who had business
transactions with both the complainant and accused No.1.
Hence, the complainant filed an application under Section 319
of Cr.P.C. seeking to implead the proposed accused No.2.
However, the said application came to be rejected by the Trial
Court.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023



5. Now, respondent No.1/accused No.1 has taken a
contention that he is neither a signatory to the cheques in
question nor an account holder and, hence, he is not liable to
pay any amount under the said cheques. Therefore, there is no
legally enforceable debt payable by him to the complainant.
Hence, the petitioner/accused No.1 prayed to quash the entire
proceedings.

6. Learned counsel Sri.Rakesh Hattikatagi, appearing
for the respondent No.1/accused No.1, vehemently contended
that accused No.1 is neither the signatory to the cheques nor
the account holder and, therefore, the proceedings initiated
against him are not maintainable. In support of his contention,
he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in 2021 INSC 164 , in Criminal Appeal No.258/2021,
in the case of Alka Khandu Avhad v. Amar Syamprasad
Mishra and Another .

7. Per contra , learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant vehemently contended that accused
No.2 (the proposed accused), had business transactions with
both the complainant and accused No.1 and, therefore, he is a

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


necessary party to the transaction. Hence, he placed reliance
on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Criminal Petition No.4600/2022 and connected matters,
disposed of on 30.09.2022.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
vehemently contended that the complainant had never issued
any notice to the proposed accused and that the proposed
accused came to know about the incident/transaction only after
filing of the impleading application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, the application filed by the complainant is not
maintainable.

9. A perusal of the material available on record would
clearly demonstrate that, originally, the complainant filed
private complaints under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act against respondent
No.1/accused No.1 on the ground that accused No.1 had issued
cheques bearing Nos.017868 and 017869 in favour of the
complainant and that and on being presentation, the said
cheques were returned with the shara 'Insufficient Funds' in the
account of accused No.1. Later, during the course of the trial, it

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


was revealed that the cheques in question stood in the name of
the proposed accused No.2.

10. The specific contention of the complainant is that
the proposed accused No.2 had business transactions with both
the complainant and accused No.1. This factual aspect is not
disputed by the complainant and the proposed accused No.2.
Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse the provision under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:
“ 319. Power to proceed against other persons
appearing to be guilty of offence.— (1) 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.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court,
he may be arrested or summoned, as the
circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose
aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not
under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by
such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial
of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person
under sub-section (1) then—
(a) the proceedings in respect of such
person shall be commenced afresh, and
the witnesses re-heard;

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a),
the case may proceed as if such person
had been an accused person when the
Court took cognizance of the offence upon
which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”

11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the material on record. The following
points would arise for my consideration:
“Whether the orders passed by the Court below
rejecting the application filed under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to implead the proposed accused
No.2 as an accused along with accused No.1, and
the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in
the Criminal Revision Petition in dismissing the said
application, are tenable in law?”

12. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The business
relationship between the parties is also not in dispute. In the
year 2018, the complainant supplied mobile phones to accused
No.1. In consideration thereof, accused No.1 issued two
cheques for a sum of ₹1,50,000/- each in favour of the
complainant, and the same were returned with the shara
'Funds Insufficient ' in the account. Accordingly, a legal notice
was issued to accused No.1. The said notice was replied to by
accused No.1.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023



13. On perusal of the reply notice, it would indicate
that, at paragraph No.3, accused No.1 has categorically
admitted the issuance of the cheques in favour of the
complainant. Accused No.1 has also admitted that there was a
separate transaction between accused Nos.1 and 2 and the
complainant. However, the legal proceedings were initiated by
the complainant only against accused No.1 under Section 200
of Cr.P.C.

14. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. gives a right to the
prosecution/complainant to seek any other parties to be
arrayed as accused in a proceeding, if during the course of
evidence if it emerges that those parties will also have to be
tried for the offence. But, this power to summon those persons
who are not named in the complaint in the case at hand while
taking cognizance, is an extraordinary power which should be
used in extraordinary circumstances. The circumstance in the
case at hand is not where the accused are being tried for
offences under the IPC. The accused are sought to be tried for
offences punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The purpose
of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Apex

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


Court in several judgments, a few of them are relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. I deem it appropriate to
notice the ones that are germane to the facts of the case at
hand. A Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
HARDEEP SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 has delineated the power under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 6 and 7 are the issues
that fell for consideration before the Apex Court and they read
as follows:
“6. On the consideration of the submissions
raised and in view of what has been noted above, the
following questions are to be answered by this Bench:
6.1. (i) What is the stage at which power under
Section 319 CrPC can be exercised?
6.2. (ii) Whether the word “evidence” used in
Section 319(1) CrPC could only mean evidence tested
by crossexamination or the court can exercise the
power under the said provision even on the basis of
the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the
witness concerned?
6.3. (iii) Whether the word “evidence” used in
Section 319(1) CrPC has been used in a
comprehensive sense and includes the evidence
collected during investigation or the word “evidence”
is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
6.4. (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction
required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC
to arraign an accused? Whether the power under
Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all
likelihood be convicted?
6.5. (v) Does the power under Section 319 CrPC
extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in
the FIR but not charged or who have been
discharged?”
7. In this reference what we are primarily
concerned with, is the stage at which such powers can
be invoked and, secondly, the material on the basis
whereof the invoking of such powers can be justified.
To add as a corollary to the same, thirdly, the manner
in which such power has to be exercised, also has to
be considered.”


15. Answering the said issues, the Apex Court holds as
follows:
“55. Accordingly, we hold that the court
can exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C
only after the trial proceeds and commences
with the recording of the evidence and also in
exceptional circumstances as explained
hereinabove.
56. There is yet another set of provisions which
form part of inquiry relevant for the purposes of
Section 319 Cr.P.C i.e. provisions of Sections 200,
201, 202, etc. Cr.P.C applicable in the case of
complaint cases. As has been discussed herein,
evidence means evidence adduced before the court.
Complaint case is a distinct category of criminal trial
where some sort of evidence in the strict legal sense
of Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Evidence Act”) comes before the
court. There does not seem to be any restriction in the
provisions of Section 319 CrPC so as to preclude such
evidence as coming before the court in complaint
cases even before charges have been framed or the
process has been issued. But at that stage as there is

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


no accused before the court, such evidence can be
used only to corroborate the evidence recorded during
the trial (sic or) for the purpose of Section 319 CrPC,
if so required. What is essential for the purpose of the
section is that there should appear some evidence
against a person not proceeded against and the stage
of the proceedings is irrelevant. Where the
complainant is circumspect in proceeding against
several persons, but the court is of the opinion that
there appears to be some evidence pointing to the
complicity of some other persons as well, Section 319
CrPC acts as an empowering provision enabling the
court/Magistrate to initiate proceedings against such
other persons. The purpose of Section 319 CrPC is
to do complete justice and to ensure that
persons who ought to have been tried as well
are also tried. Therefore, there does not appear
to be any difficulty in invoking powers of Section
319 CrPC at the stage of trial in a complaint case
when the evidence of the complainant as well as
his witnesses are being recorded .
57. Thus, the application of the provisions
of Section 319 CrPC, at the stage of inquiry is to
be understood in its correct perspective. The
power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised
only on the basis of the evidence adduced before
the court during a trial. So far as its application
during the course of inquiry is concerned, it
remains limited as referred to hereinabove,
adding a person as an accused, whose name has
been mentioned in Column 2 of the chargesheet
or any other person who might be an
accomplice.
….
105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a
discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be
exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the
circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be
exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions
Judge is of the opinion that some other person may
also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person
from the evidence led before the court that such
power should be exercised and not in a casual and
cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a
prima facie case is to be established from the
evidence led before the court, not necessarily
tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it
requires much stronger evidence than mere
probability of his complicity. The test that has to
be applied is one which is more than prima facie
case as exercised at the time of framing of
charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent
that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would
lead to conviction. In the absence of such
satisfaction, the court should refrain from
exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In
Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it
appears from the evidence that any person not
being the accused has committed any offence” is
clear from the words “for which such person
could be tried together with the accused”. The
words used are not “for which such person could
be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for
the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form
any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. ”
(Emphasis supplied)


16. The Apex Court holds that extraordinary power
should be used sparingly only if it appears from the evidence
that any person not being the accused has committed the
offence, he could be tried together with other accused.

17. The High Court of Delhi in the case of SARABJIT
SINGH V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


(Crl.M.C.No.2856/2015 and Crl.M.A.No.10176/2015 decided on
8-10-2018) arabjit Singh ( supra ) considering this issue has
held as follows:
“8. In the complaint, reference was made to the
company as an accused. It appears that under some
confusion, inadvertently the name of the company
was omitted from the array of accused. The
complainant had brought an application immediately,
in 2008 itself, to make suitable correction. By the
time, the said application came up for consideration,
the summoning order had already been passed. Since
the Magistrate did not have the power of review, there
was some difficulty in entertaining the said request at
that stage. This is why liberty was granted while
permitting the first application under Section 319 CrPC
to be withdrawn for such application to be moved
again. The application on which the order was passed
by the Metropolitan Magistrate which was set aside by
the revisional Court, was an application moved in
exercise of such liberty.
9. Since the evidence which has come on
record does not show the complicity of the
second respondent in the crime, the cheques in
question having been issued against its account,
it having received the notice of demand and not
having made any payment in response thereto
satisfying the claim of the complainant arising
out of the said cheques, the exercise of
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. could and should not have
been interfered with by the revisional court.
10. For the above reasons, the petition is
allowed. The impugned order of the revisional
Court is set aside and the order dated 22-08-
2014 of the Magistrate is restored. The second
respondent company consequently will face the
prosecution in the criminal complaint along 2
Crl.M.C.2856/2015 & Crl.M.A.10176/2015

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


decided on 8-10-2018 47 with the other
accused, it having been summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.”
(Emphasis supplied)


18. The Delhi High Court considers the purport of
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. qua Section 138 of the Act and holds
that the evidence which comes on record does show complicity
of the person who is sought to be arrayed as accused in the
crime and arraigning all those accused in terms of Section 319
of the Cr.P.C. could be permitted. This was called in question
before the Apex Court by filing a special leave petition in M
TECH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., V. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
& OTHERS in S.L.P (Crl) No.15/2019 . The Apex Court
dismissed the S.L.P. by the following order:
“1. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the High Court.

2. In our view, the reasoning and the
conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not
call for any interference. The Special Leave
Petition is accordingly dismissed.

3. However, we direct the concerned Magistrate,
who is seized of the complaint, to decide the same in
accordance with law within a period of six months
from to-day.”

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


(Emphasis supplied)


19. The Apex Court holds on perusal of the record of
the case that it was not inclined to interfere with the order
impugned. In view of the reasoning and conclusion arrived by
the High Court there was no warrant of interference. The
reason so rendered by the High Court permitting impleadment
is extracted hereinabove. If the facts of the case on hand is
considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of HARDEEP SINGH and that of the
High Court of Delhi in the case of SARABJIT SINGH, what
would unmistakably emerge is that the order passed by the
learned Magistrate was tenable in law.

20. A perusal of the complaint, objections, legal notice,
reply notice and the contentions raised by both the parties
would indicate that the cheques were issued by accused No.1,
which stood in the name of accused No.2. However, this fact
was not within the knowledge of the complainant at the time of
filing the complaints. Hence, initially, the complainant arrayed
respondent No.1 alone as an accused and subsequently came
to know that the proposed accused No.2 was the signatory to

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023


the said cheques. Hence, in order to ascertain these factual
aspects, a detailed trial is required.

21. In the light of the above and for the reasons stated
supra , the application filed by the complainant under Section
319 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the
orders passed by the learned Trial Court and learned sessions
judge, rejecting the said application cannot be sustained.

22. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner/accused
No.1 seeking to quash the entire proceedings is concerned,
accused No.1 himself has admitted the transaction in paragraph
No.5 of the reply notice. Hence, there is no merit in the
contention of the petitioner/accused No.1. Accordingly, the
point for consideration is answered ‘ partly in the affirmative ’.

23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceed to
pass the following;
ORDER

i. Criminal Petition Nos.101407/2023 and
101408/2023 filed by the petitioner/accused
No.1 are hereby dismissed .

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023



ii. Criminal Petition Nos.103471/2023 and
103474/2023 filed by the complainant are
hereby allowed .

iii. The orders passed by the learned Trial Court in
criminal case and the learned Sessions Judge in
Criminal Revision Petition are hereby set-aside.
Consequently, the applications filed by the
complainant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to implead the proposed accused No.2
are hereby allowed.

iv. The complainant is permitted to implead the
proposed accused No.2 as ‘accused No.2’.

v. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter in accordance with law.

vi. It is clarified that the complaint shall be decided
on their own merits and in accordance with law,
after giving an opportunity to all the parties.

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17829
CRL.P No. 103471 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 101407 of 2023
CRL.P No. 101408 of 2023
AND 1 OTHER


CNR: KAHC020173942023



vii. Any observations made in this order shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the cases.

viii. Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of, as
they do not survive for consideration.

Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE

CLK-para 1
AM –para 2 to end
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4