M. S. A. SIDDIQUI,j. ( 1 ) CHALLENGE in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is to the orderdated 6. 11. 1998 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi directing impleadmentof the petitioners as accused in the criminal case filed by. the respondent. Both thepetitions are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to these petitions are that on 23. 3. 1998, M/s. Okara Agro Industries Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Company) issued acheque for Rs. 26,000. 00 in favour of the respondent. The cheque was signed by theauthorised signatory, namely, Shri Narender Jeet Singh. When the cheque waspresented for encashment, the drawee bank dishonoured it on 27. 3. 1998 on accountof insufficiency of funds. Respondent issued a notice to the said company on1. 4. 1998 catling upon it to pay the amount. As the company failed to pay the amount,a complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 27. 4. 1998 against thecompany and its authorised signatory under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumentsact and Sections 420/406/34 IPC. On 3. 6. 1998 the respondent filed an applicatiorbefore the Metropolitan Magistrate for impleadment of the petitioners and others asaccused in the case. By the impugned order dated 6. 11. 1998, the learned Magistratedirected that the petitioners should be impleaded as accused persons and be triecalong with the remaining accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners havecome up before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) IT needs to be highlighted that the complaint was not filed against the petitionersand there is not even a whisper in the complaint or shred of evidence nor anything toshow, apart from the application filed -by the respondent, that there is any actcommitted by the petitioners from which a reasonable inference can be drawn thatthey could also be vicariously liable for the offences alleged to have been committeeby the company. The Court can proceed against a person under Section 319 Cr. P. Conly if there is some evidence to show that the same person has committed anoffence of which the Court can take cognizance. In the absence of any such evidencesuch person cannot be summoned as co-accused. In Joginder Singh Vs. State ofpunjab AIR No. 1979 SC 339, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider thescope and object of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the absence of any such evidencesuch person cannot be summoned as co-accused. In Joginder Singh Vs. State ofpunjab AIR No. 1979 SC 339, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider thescope and object of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was observedthat: "a plain reading of Section 319 (1), which occurs in Chapter XXIV dealing withgeneral provisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to allthe Courts including a Sessions Court and as such a Sessions Court will havethe power to add any person, not being the accused before it, but againstwhom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvementin the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the otheraccused. " ( 4 ) IN Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Ram Kumar, AIR 1983 SC 67 , it was heldthat the power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. should be used very sparingly and only ifcompelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person againstwhom action has not been taken. In the instant case, the impugned order does notindicate about existence of any evidence on record to connect the petitioners with thealleged offences. In the absence of any evidence, the application filed by therespondent for impleading the petitioners as co-accused is premature and theimpugned order directing to issue process against them cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are allowed and the impugnedorder dated 6. 11. 1998 insofar as it directs that the petitioners should be impleadedas accused persons and be tried along with the remaining accused persons isquashed. I would, however, make it plain that the mere fact that the proceedings havebeen quashed against the petitioners will not prevent the court from exercising itsdiscretion under Section 319 Cr. P. C. if it is fully satisfied that a case for takingcognizance against them has been made out on the evidence led before it.