The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in S.C. No. 86/2014 pending before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Mavelikkara. Pending the proceedings, he filed an affidavit before the trial court, making a request to delete the name of the 3rd accused from the array of accused. The learned trial judge did not act on it, and rightly did not pass any orders. There is no question of a defacto complainant making application to delete an accused during the proceedings. Now, he has come before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for orders deleting the 3rd accused from the array of accused. 2. It is not known why the said 3rd accused does not make application properly before the trial court. Once cognizance is taken on final report by the court, process is issued, and the case proceeds for trial, the right and proper remedy legally available to the accused is to make a plea for discharge, if it is a warrant trial. If it is a summons case brought by the police, or instituted Crl.M.C. No. 5791 Of 2014 2 otherwise than upon complaint, petition can be filed under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The practice or procedure of deleting an accused otherwise than as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not known. Here, the accused does not seek any relief. He does not want to be deleted, and he does not apply for discharge. It is quite strange that the complainant comes before the court, and seeks orders deleting an accused. If the accused in fact wants any relief deleting him from the array of accused by way of discharge or otherwise, he can make appropriate application before the trial court.
With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE