Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The Petitioner in the present petition is aggrieved by the order dated 20th November, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 2/2009 summoning the Petitioner as an accused in the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be passed only during the pendency of the trial. Once the judgment is dictated/pronounced the trial comes to an end and the Court has no jurisdiction to summon an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the impugned order dated 20th November, 2010 summoning the Petitioner was passed after the learned Additional Sessions Judge dictated and pronounced the judgment in the abovementioned Sessions Case convicting the other family members of the Petitioner, that is, Munni Devi, Archana and Rajesh for offences under Sections 307/498A/34 IPC. In this regard reference is made to Section 353 Cr.P.C. which states that the judgment in every trial shall be pronounced by the Presiding Officer immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleader. Reliance in this regard is placed on Michael Machado and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, AIR 2000 SC 1127; Prasanna Das and another vs. State of Orissa, 2004 (13) SCC 30; Gopal Krishna vs. State of Bihar, 1987 CRI. L.J. 1487; and Samartha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2002 (2) Crimes 536.

3. It is further stated that the statement of the Complainant completely exonerates the Petitioner who is the husband and hence the Petitioner could not have been summoned even on merits. The Complainant had filed another FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC at PS Patel Nagar, Dehradun. The proceedings therein have been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital.

4. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the application for summoning the Petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the public prosecutor on 21st October, 2010 when the trial was going on. However, the learned Magistrate directed that this application will be decided along with the main case. The learned Trial Court thus while pronouncing the judgment of conviction of the other family members of the Petitioner on the same day passed the order summoning the Petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Since the two orders were passed simultaneously it cannot be said that the impugned order passed after the trial was concluded. It is thus contended that there is no merit in the petition and the petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The impugned order dated 20th November, 2010 reads as under: -

“Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in Open Court, all the four accused Bishan Lal, Munni Devi, Archna and Rajesh are convicted U/s 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. Besides that, accused Munni Devi, Archna and Rajesh are also convicted u/s 307/34 IPC. Accused Archna and Rajesh be taken into custody. Since accused Munni Devi is also liable to the taken in to custody, but keeping in view her age and ill health, she is not taken into custody at present.I have also considered the application filed by Ld. APP on 21.10.10 U/s 319 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for summoning Rakesh, husband of Complainant Renu as accused in this case. While dictating the judgment against the aforesaid accused, I have found that there is sufficient evidence again the husband of the Complainant Sh. Rakesh also. Therefore, summons be issued to Sh. Rakesh, son of Sh. Bishan Lal, R/o 1134, Gali No. 5/6, Main Sagarpur, New Delhi, for the next date of hearing.”

7. Thus it is evident that this order on the application was passed after the pronouncement of judgment in Sessions Case No. 2/2009 convicting Munni Devi, Archna and Rajesh, though the application had been filed on 21st October, 2010 by the Public Prosecutor when t