JUDGMENT

Surendra Singh-I, J.

Heard Shri K.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Surendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Shri Prashant Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in S.T. No. 55 of 2019, State v. Shaym Dhar Tiwari and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 192 of 2017, under Sections 147 , 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Koirauna, District Bhadohi. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has summoned applicants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for trial.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the Trial Court has summoned them for trial under the aforesaid sections without any evidence. It has also been submitted that although they were named in the FIR but the Investigating Officer during investigation did not find any evidence against them and did not file charge sheet against them. It has also been submitted that in the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2, Abhishek Tiwari against applicants and six other accused persons, general role of abusing and beating the informant has been made against the applicants along with other co-accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to them. It is submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. It has also been submitted that in the evidence recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the main role of causing injury to opposite party no. 2 and his mother, Meena Tiwari has been assigned to co-accused Kripashankar and applicants are not concerned with the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. It has also been submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on record to summon applicants for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but the Trial Court wrongly summoned them.

4. The applicants have place reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Naveen v. State of Haryana , passed in SLP (Crl) No. 3446 of 2022 on 01.11.2022.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A. have opposed the application and submitted that applicants are named in the FIR along with six other co-accused having equally participating in the offence. They have also stated that the Investigating Officer had wrongly dropped their names while filing charge-sheet. It is submitted that after framing of the charge, the prosecution witnesses injured, P.W.-1-Abhishek Tiwari, injured P.W.-2-Smt. Meena Tiwari and eye witness P.W.-3-Jatashankar Tiwari have supported the prosecution case and deposed against the applicants as well as other co-accused of having complicity in the offence during the course of which P.W.-1 Abhishek Tiwari and P.W.-2 Meena Tiwari have received fatal injuries.

6. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 have placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana , 2021 AIR SC 4274 .

7. The scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been well-settled by the pronouncement of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others , (2014) 3 SCC 92 and paras 105 and 106 which are relevant for the purpose are reproduced hereunder :

"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C, 1973 is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing t