Can’t Drag Accused's Wife In Criminal Case Merely Because She Is Staying With Him: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that both the husband and wife should not be accused for the same crime merely because the wife was staying with the husband.
The petitioner had approached the High Court assailing an order of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to implead the respondent-wife as the fourth accused in a criminal case.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna asserted, “Merely because she is the wife of accused No.3, against whom all the allegations are made, she cannot be brought into the web of crime.”
Advocate Rajashekar S. represented the petitioner while Additional SPP B.N. Jagadeesha represented the respondent.
The facts of the case suggested that a crime case came to be registered by the jurisdictional Detecting Officer of the Karnataka Excise Department for offences punishable under Sections 13, 32(2) and 38(A) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965. The allegation was, when the officials of the Department of Excise along with other staff were conducting inspection in Bantwal Taluk, they found the second accused possessed large number of spurious liquor. The Officials also found infrastructure for manufacture of such spurious liquor in the backyard of the house of the third accused.
For the petitioner, Rajashekhar contended that the respondent-wife was residing along with the other two accused who were allegedly selling large number of spurious liquor. It was also submitted that the wife of accused No.3 had equal knowledge of manufacturing, storing and selling of spurious liquor. Therefore, the application seeking dragging in the wife of the accused should have been allowed as there was ample evidence for trial against her for the simple reason that she had the knowledge of all the activities of the other accused.
Referring to Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which permits summoning of a person as an additional accused, the Bench opined, “To summon someone as an additional accused who has either been dropped from the charge sheet or never an accused at any point in time, requires evidence that is necessary for drawing up as an accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet.”
The Bench also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Shankar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh wherein it was held that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised at a pre-trial stage, as to bring in another accused. There must be some evidence and for some evidence the trial must commence.
In the case at hand, the Bench noted that trial is yet to commence. “Moreover, Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. casts higher degree of evidence against the person who is sought to be impleaded as an accused than what is available at the time of investigation”, it added.
Further observing that in the case at hand, the husband is already an accused, the Bench opined that the husband and the wife both shouldn’t be accused for the same crime, merely because the wife was staying with the husband. There was not even an allegation that the wife had indulged in the activities of manufacturing and storing of spurious liquor.
Rejecting the petition, the Bench held, “The application is misconceived and filed with an oblique motive to settle scores with accused No.3 that too, at a pre-trial stage.”
Cause Title: Sri R.K.Bhat vs. Smt. Shanthi Roache [Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:43494]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Rajashekar S.
Respondent: Additional SPP B.N.Jagadeesha
