The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and based on substantive evidence indicating a reasonable prospect of conviction of the person to be summoned.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the informant.

2. In the present case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th July 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara in G.R.No. 2566 of 2007/Tr.No. 3200 of 2008 whereby and whereunder notices have been issued to the petitioners in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, “the Code”) on the ground that there are sufficient materials against the petitioners which have come in course of trial.

3. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Cr. Revision No. 151 of 2010 and learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara after considering the material on the record and also examining the evidence which has come during the trial, dismissed the revision application and against that the present Cr.Misc. application has been filed making a prayer to quash the order of Sessions Judge as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara.

4. In the present case, an FIR was lodged by one Jiyaur Rahman against (1) Kamru Jama, (2) Shamshu Jama, (3) Sadru Jama, (4) Nasru Jama, (5) Sharafat, (6) Ekrarul Haque,(7) Abdul Hasan, (8) Kamarat Ali, (9) Riyazuddin and (10) Salamat Ali. The allegation made in the FIR is that the ancestral house of the informant was standing over plot no. 3867, apperratining to Khata No. 40, measuring an area of 2 decimals and the said land was recorded in the name of grand-father of the informant, namely Animul Haque. It has been said that the neighbors of the informant, namely, petitioner Kamru Jama and Abbas Ali have been laying claim over the said land forcibly with respect to which, a case was also instituted in court which was decided in favour of the informant and due to the said reasons, parties became annoyed and attempted to harass the informant. On the alleged date of occurrence, the accused persons entered into the house and hurled abuses and challenged that even though the informant had won the case, it is hardly any mater. When the informant raised alarm, his son Fidaur Rahman @ Arju and his nephew Afroz Alam rushed to the place and they were also assaulted by the accused persons causing them injuries. It has further been averred in the FIR that they entered into the house and took away Rs.25,000/- but with the intervention of Hafiz, Md. Kalimuddin and Kurban Ali, the matter could be sorted out at the relevant time and the reason has been assigned of old land dispute. In pursuance of this FIR, the case was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted in which Md. Sadru Jama, Sharafat Hussain, Md. Salamat, Ekrarul Haque, Md. Abdul Hasan and Md. Riyazuddin, were charge-sheeted whereas with respect to Shamshu Jama, Nasru Jama,Kamru Jama and Karamat Ali Police submitted final form. Cognizance was taken against those accused and they were sent up for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 337 and 504 IPC. With regard to removal of articles and cash, allegation was found to be false. During the trial, Md. Afroz Ali (P.W.1), Arju (P.W.2) and Md. Fidaur Rahman (P.W.3) were examined and in course of evidence, they have taken the names of petitioners making allegation against them also.

5. The informant of this case, filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stating therein the fact that during the trial, the witnesses have directly named the petitioners involved in the alleged incident and those statements are sufficient for conviction of the petitioners and, accordingly the court below issued summonses which were challenged but failed before the Sessions Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below has wrongly exercised the power under Section 319 of the Code, as there was no sufficient material which may lead to conviction of petitioners and the court u/s 319 of the Code cannot go for a roving enquiry and wrongly issued summons to the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code.

7. The primary object of Section 319 of the Cod