IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51460 of 2007 1. MAMTA DEVI WIFE OF SUDHIR RAM 2. SUNAINA DEVI WIFE OF SHANKAR RAM 3. VIMLA DEVI, WIFE OF ASHOK RAM …PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. ARJUN RAM …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioners : Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary & : Mr.Vijay Kumar For the State : Mr.Dr. Mayanand Jha,APP For o.p.no.2 :Mr.Lalan Kr. No.1 & : Mr.Brij Bihari Tiwari ----------- 07. 31.08.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Lakhisarai in Complaint Case No.111C/2001, whereby on an application preferred by the complainant the left out accused persons(petitioners herein) have been summoned to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws attention of the court to paragraph 4 of the complaint wherein the allegations pertaining to these petitioners have been made. It is contended that going by the allegation contained therein, it would appear that there is some allegation directed against petitioner no.1 Mamta Devi and petitioner no.2 Sunaina Devi. It is contended that there is absolutely no allegation so far as petitioner no.3 Vimla Devi is concerned. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that in course of evidence, the P.Ws. have named 2 the petitioners including petitioner Vimla Devi. I have minutely gone through the complaint. Any observation of this Court in the present proceeding may prejudice the case of the party and, as such, I refrain from giving any comment on the submissions. There appears to be no allegation in the complaint against petitioner no.3 Vimla Devi. Subsequently, the prosecution has tried to develop the case wherein petitioner no.3 Vimla Devi has also been enmeshed as an accused. The court while exercising power under section 319 Cr.P.C. has to keep in mind that there is no legal obligation on the court to summon an accused for facing the trial. Such exercises can be made only when it is found that there is/are convincing evidence on record justifying summoning of the accused. The complaint is elaborative, yet there is no allegation worth the name against petitioner no.3 Vimla Devi. Subsequent naming her at the trial will not justify invocation of jurisdiction. This Court thus is satisfied that the order dated 12.09.2007 requires to be interfered with and quashed in so far as petitioner no.3 Vimla Devi is concerned. I order accordingly. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )