IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.414 of 2007 DEVENDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 9.9.2008. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.876 of 2005 thereby all the three petitioners have been summoned under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Kathaiya P.S. Case No.7 of 2005 was registerd under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. on the basis of fardbeyan lodged by one Prabodh Chaudhary against two persons namely, Sanjiv Chawdhary and Mukund Chawdhary. There is specific allegation in the F.I.R. that Sanjiv Chawdhary fired upon the deceased from Narkatwa. There is no allegation against any other persons. These petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. though they are resident of village of the informant. During course of the investigation also, the complicity of the petitioners did not surface. In course of trial, the prosecution - 2 - examined as many as 20 witnesses out of them 14 witnesses did not name these petitioners. However, some of the witnesses in their evidence told that these petitioners were also standing near the place of occurrence. However, none of the witnesses alleged any overt act against them. The learned lower court has summoned these petitioners at the fag of end of the trial. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated at a belated stage of the trial. There is no cogent material or evidence to show any complicity of the petitioners in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the learned lower court ought to have properly considered the evidence and scope of section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and rejected the prayer of the opposite parties. Section 319 Cr.P.C. is enabling provision. It should be used sparingly and too in compelling circumstances. From the facts stated above, it is quite clear that there was no compelling circumstances to - 3 - N.H./ summon these petitioners at the fag of end of the trial. There is also no allegation of overt act against these petitioners. Summoning of the petitioners at this stage would amount to denovo trial which will further delay the disposal of the case. In my view at this stage, summoning of the petitioners under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is not proper or legal. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. ( Ghanshyam Prasad )