M. S. A. SIDDIQUI ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 187. 1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge directing issue of summons under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. against her. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to this petition are that on the basis of the report lodged by Smt. Nirmala Devi (Public Witness-2) FIR No. 175/89 was registered at the Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi. Investigation pursuant to the said FIR culminated into submission of a Charge Sheet under Section 498-A/304-B/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. At the initial stage of the investigation, involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident was suspected but on completion of the investigation She was exonerated by the investigating agency and her name was shown in Column No. 2 of the Charge-sheet. When the case was closed for judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the said entry in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet directed issue of summons under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) ASSAILING upon the validity of the impugned order learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is not an iota of evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a manifest illegality in summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. ( 4 ) IT is significant to mention that the impugned order is conspicuous by the absence of any observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that the evidence on record discloses involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned the following reasons for directing issue of process under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. against the petitioner:- "shakuntala was kept in Column No. 2 by the Police. While record in evidence. She was mentioned at P. O. by my learned predecessor. This led the court in not passing an order under Sec. 319 Criminal Procedure Code. at the earlier possible opportunity. When the matter was meticulously assessed for the purpose of judgment it "came to light. She was not at all challenged. While record in evidence. She was mentioned at P. O. by my learned predecessor. This led the court in not passing an order under Sec. 319 Criminal Procedure Code. at the earlier possible opportunity. When the matter was meticulously assessed for the purpose of judgment it "came to light. She was not at all challenged. ( 5 ) IN my opinion the reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions, Judge for exercising power under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. are wholly erroneous. As noticed earlier, the Police carried out the investigation at the end of which they exonerated the petitioner. That is why she was not arraigned as an accused and her name was shown in Column No. 2 of the charge sheet. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also lost sight of the fact that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Consequently, there was no justification for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code. It needs to be highlighted that the alleged offence occurred on 8. 6. 1989. The challan was presented on 18. 10. 1989. The prosecution evidence was closed on 5. 10. 1996. Examination of the accused under Section 318 Criminal Procedure Code. was completed on 13. 5. 1997. Thereafter the case underwent several unmerited adjournments for recording the evidence of defence witnesses and for hearing final arguments. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should be realised that sword has been kept hanging on the heads of the accused persons for more than nine years. Such protraction of trial itself means considerable harassment to the accused persons not only mentally but also by way of constant attention to the case and repeated appearance in the Court, apart from anxiety and mental agony. Perhaps, he did not realise that the impugned order would have the effect of reopening of the entire prosecution case and throwing the case in the state of uncertainty which would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. I am constrained to observe that the impugned order does not reflect application of judicial mind and the same has been passed in the casual manner. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to quashed as it has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13. 7. 1998 is quashed. Consequently, the impugned order is liable to quashed as it has resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13. 7. 1998 is quashed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case within one month from today. Record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.