IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12755 of 2008 RINKI DEVI daughter of Santosh Prasad Gupta, resident of village-Raieepatti, P.S.-Dighwara, Dist.-Saran. …… ……Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp.Party. ----------- 3. 23.6.2010. The petitioner, who is complainant in Complaint Case No.2649 of 2004, Trial No.1739 of 2006, has approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 6.2.2008 passed in Cr. Revision No.18 of 2007 by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran. The revisional court by its order dated 6.2.2008 has quashed the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran in Tr. No.1739 of 2006. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran, while exercising power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after examining six witnesses and on the prayer of the complainant had summoned opposite party no.2 to face trial with other accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after examination of six witnesses sufficient materials were brought on record suggesting the involvement of opposite party no.2, who was arrayed as accused no.6 in the complaint petition. However, at the time of cognizance, the learned Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence against the opposite party no.2, namely, Sheweta Kumari @ Rani. It was submitted that under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. anyone can be summoned to face trial provided during trial some materials are brought on record suggesting his/her involvement. He submits that power under Section 319 of 2 the Cr.P.C. is wide enough for summoning such person to face trial. It was submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate , Saran by its order dated 18.12.2006, has rightly summoned opposite party no.2, Sheweta Kumari @ Rani for facing trial along with other accused persons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran had incorrectly interfered with the order passed by the Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran and order of revisional court dated 6th February, 2008 passed in Cr. Revision No.18 of 2007 is liable to be set aside. Shri Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 supports the order passed by the revisional court. He submits that opposite party no.2 was initially made accused and arrayed as accused no.6 in the complaint petition, which was filed by the petitioner. After filing of the complaint petition as well as examination of enquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the materials warranting summoning the opposite party no.2 to face trial and, accordingly, the complaint in respect of opposite party no.2 was rejected at the time of cognizance. It was submitted that once opposite party no.2 was made accused at the enquiry stage and her case was dropped at subsequent stage, she cannot be considered as “ any person not being the accused” and, accordingly, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., she was not required to be summoned. He submits that the learned Magistrate oblivious of the provision contained in Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. had incorrectly summoned opposite party no.2 to face trial along 3 with other accused persons. According to Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, on revision filed by opposite party no.2 vide Cr. Revision No.18 of 2007, learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran by its order dated 6.2.2008 has corrected the defect and has rightly quashed the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the impugned order as well as materials available on the record. While setting aside the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran, the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran has discussed the judgment of this Court reported in 2004(2) PLJR 225 ( Rama Devi and another Vs. State of Bihar and another) The judgment of this Court in Rama Devi’s case (supra) has clarified the position and the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. Since opposite party no.2 was already made accused at the enquiry stage, at subsequent stage, the learned Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Saran was not required to exercise power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning opposite party no.2 to face trial. I do not find any defect in the order of revisional court rather this Court is of the opinion that the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran has passed a detailed and reasoned order based on correct principle of law. Accordingly, I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned order and the petition stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)