Honble KHAN, J.–The petitioner is the person aggrieved in the State case registered on police report and after commitment by the Magistrate is now pending, for trial of the accused committed, in the court of the learned Sessions Judge. After investigation the police had submitted a positive report u/S. 170/173 Cr.P.C. against eleven persons and a report u/S. 169 Cr.P.C. against non-petitioner No. 2. The peti- tioner/Public Prosecutor moved an application requiring the learned Magistrate to summon and commit respondent No. 2 as well, as an accused in the case. The learned Magistrate, without passing any orders on the said application, committed the case to the court of Sessions as per provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. as is stated by the lear- ned Public Prosecutor before me, and heard the parties for framing charges against the accused committed. The petitioner and the Public Prosecutor also besides the defence counsel, was also heard. He pressed that respondent No. 2 be also summoned as an additional accused. His point was that at the stage of taking cognizance of the case on commitment the Sessions Judge may summon such per- son also as accused in the case who had not been either chargesheeted by the police or included by the Magistrate in the list of the persons committed to him. The stand taken by the other side was that once the Sessions Court is properly seized of the case, as a result of the committal order against some accused only, addition of some other person as additional accused may be made in the case only by taking recourse to the procedure contained in Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the view point of the other side and dismissed petitioners application. Hence this petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner. (2). Mr. S.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the same arguments as were advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge and has relied upon Kishan Singh vs. State of Bihar (1) and Nisar vs. State of U.P. (2) which support such a view. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order with reliance on State of U.P. vs. Lakshmi Brahman (3) . (3). The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order with reliance on State of U.P. vs. Lakshmi Brahman (3) . (3). For reasons recorded hereinafter I find no force in this petition and would reject it accordingly. (1) In a case registered on police report, like the present one, a private party has no locus standi unless gross injustice is shown likely to be occasioned to him by sustaining the impugned order. The present case makes no exceptional case so as to record a departure from the general rule. It still remains open to the learned trial Judge to summon any person, not an accused in the case, as an additional accused as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. if evidence coming on the record at the trial so warrants and justifies. No failure of justice is thus likely to occasion to the petitioner. (see Thakur Ram vs. State of Bihar (5). (2) On committal of a case to him, the Sessions Judge takes cognizance of `the case and not `of the accused. The stage of summoning `any person who is not an accused in the case before him, is arrived at after he is properly seized of the case as a result of the committal order. It is, thereafter, that he can exercise his power u/Sec. 319(1) for summoning `any person as additional accused in the case and direct him to be tried alongwith the other accused for the offence which such added person, as accused, appears to have committed from the evidence recorded at the trial. (See Jogindra Singh vs. State of Punjab (6) alongwith paras 24.80 and 24.81 of the 41st Report of the Law Commission). (3) The correctness of the view expressed in Kishan Singhs and Nisars cases (supra) was doubted in Raj Kishore Prasads case (supra). The Benches in all the three cases were constituted by two Honble Judges of the Supreme Court in each Bench. The Bench, ex- pressing the view in the above manner in Jogendra Singhs case (supra) was constituted by three Honble Judges of the Apex Court. The view expressed in Jogendra Singhs Case (supra) supports the view expressed in Raj Kishore Prasads case (supra) and is, as per precedent and practice, to be followed by this court. (4). Offences, triable exclusively by court of Sessions, are serious and grave in nature. The view expressed in Jogendra Singhs Case (supra) supports the view expressed in Raj Kishore Prasads case (supra) and is, as per precedent and practice, to be followed by this court. (4). Offences, triable exclusively by court of Sessions, are serious and grave in nature. The conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Agency, after investigation into such offence, should ordinarily be not disturbed at the preliminary stage of proceedings in the presence of remedy provided u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party which the State, as guardian and custodian of the rights and interest of the aggrieved citizen, is in a case registered on a police report. (5). ``No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file mis-conceived or frivolous petitions (vide Dr. Buddhi Kota Subha Rao vs. K. Parasaran) (7). In the present case for causing simple and grievous hurt, with blunt as well as sharp weapons, to injured persons as many as eleven persons, including some ladies, have already been put on trial. On thorough investigation of the case by the Investigating Agency Respondent No. 2 had not been found as one amongst the assailants. There was hardly any case for pressing the court of Sessions to summon the respondent No. 2 as an additional accused in the case at the preliminary stage of the case, after the learned Sessions Judge had already taken cognizance of the case, on commitment of it to him, against eleven accused, on the mere basis of respondent No. 2s name appearing in the F.I.R. and/or statements of some witnesses recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. ignoring altogether the result of the investigation as contained in police reports submitted u/Ss. 169, 170, 173 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge did well in not subordinating his judicial opinion and discretion to the whim and wishes of the petitioner and/or the Public Prosecutor. (6). It is well settled that power u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. are exceptional and must be sparingly exercised with circumspection to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure ends of justice. The present case does not meet these requirements. There is no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. (7). (6). It is well settled that power u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. are exceptional and must be sparingly exercised with circumspection to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure ends of justice. The present case does not meet these requirements. There is no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. (7). In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.