Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 6.2.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Cr. Revision No. 28 of 1998 by which he allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 30.5.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea, in G.R No. 2181 of 1988 passed under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issuing summons against opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. 2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. 3. On the basis of the first information report, a criminal case was registered under Secs. 147, 447, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against the named accused persons including opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 on the allegation that on the date of occurrence the informant and his brothers were ploughing the field, in the meantime ten named accused persons including opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 came and attacked with lathi, chain and sickle and on the order of Kusheshwar Bishwas, opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 tried to kill the informant by standing on his chest. The police took up the investigation of the case and submitted report and trial of the case commenced against the accused persons. It appears that after closure of the prosecution case, accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was fixed for defence evidence. The petitioners case is that in the meantime a petition was filed making a prayer for allowing the prosecution to examine some of its witnesses as Court witness under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said prayer was allowed and some witnesses were examined. The learned Magistrate after examination of some more witnesses came to the conclusion that some material evidence came against opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and accordingly opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were summoned under the provision of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, moved the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 284 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge after haring the parties allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, moved the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 284 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge after haring the parties allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and hence this application. 4. Mr. Rekha Mukund learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that the revisional Court has committed grave error of law inasmuch as it has not considered the fact whether the material evidence exists for issuance of summons on opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the revisional Court failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution or the informant has no remedy left after submission of the final form by the police showing the accused as not sent up for trial except the evidence in Court. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the revisional Court has not considered that no harm will be caused to any one in testifying the deposition of the witnesses in the trial. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 5 firstly attacked the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the informant. According to the learned Counsel it is the State which should have come forward, if aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the revisional Court. Learned Counsel then submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in 1988 and in 1991 the prosecution examinee altogether eleven witnesses but not a single witness has named these opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 for the commission of the alleged offence. It is after about 6-7 years a petition was filed by the petitioner on the basis of which the learned Magistrate passed the order for issuance of summons against opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that several years have passed and a criminal case of petty offence has been pending which is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. Admittedly, on the basis of the written report given by Narain Lal Bishwas, one F.I.R. was drawn up against the named accused persons including opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that several years have passed and a criminal case of petty offence has been pending which is fit to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. Admittedly, on the basis of the written report given by Narain Lal Bishwas, one F.I.R. was drawn up against the named accused persons including opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 and a case was registered on 25.10.1988 under Secs. 147, 447, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The police officer after institution of the case took up investigation and concluded the same, but no material whatsoever against opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 came in the case diary and accordingly, opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were not sent up for trial. Admittedly the Investigating agency found materials against the six accused persons and they were sent up for trial. It is also not disputed that after submission of the charge sheet the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued processes against those accused persons. Even at the stage of framing of charge, the learned Magistrate did not find any material on record against the opposite parties and the learned Court below framed charges only against those accused persons who were sent up for trial. The prosecution thereafter examined witnesses in a very leisurely manner till 11.7.1991. The prosecution witnesses did not whisper anything against the opposite parties. Ultimately, the prosecution evidence was closed and all those accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was fixed on 20.7.1991 for the evince of defence. It was only after the case was fixed for evidence of the witnesses on defence, the prosecution came up with an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for examination of some witnesses as Court witnesses and thereafter a petition under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning these opposite parties and the learned Magistrate allowed the aforesaid petition by order dated 30.5.1994. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his order passed in revision rightly observed that the opposite parties who were actually discharged long long ago about 5-6 years back, the learned Magistrate ought not to have allowed the petition under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. The object of Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. is not to give premium to the prosecution to fill up lacuna by examining witnesses and to rake prayer subsequently under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Admittedly at the stage of taking cognizance and at the time of framing of charge which took place 5-6 years back, the prosecution did not raise objection to the final investigation report or framing of charge against the opposite parties. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to a right finding that the manner in which summons were issued against the opposite parties is unwarranted in law. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order passed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is in accordance with law. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this application which is, accordingly dismissed.