Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of the summoning order dated 17.11.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, summoning the petitioner as accused, to face trial, under Section 302, IPC, and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon. 2. The facts, in brief, are that after the completion of investigation of FIR 130 dated 15.10.1994 of Police Station Division No. 1 Pathankot, under Section 302, IPC, challan was submitted by the Police against accused, Ashok Kumar, and thereafter, statements of various prosecution witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed by the State, for summoning the present petitioner, Pawan Kumar, as an accused, to stand trial along with co-accused, Ashok Kumar. The said application was contested by the accused, alleging therein that there was no legal evidence to summon Pawan Kumar as accused. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 17.11.1997, ordered summoning of the present petitioner, Pawan Kumar, as accused to face trial under Section 302, IPC, along with co- accused, Ashok Kumar. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, Pawan Kumar filed the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, in this Court. 3. Notice was ordered to be given to AG Punjab and meanwhile, operation of the order dated 17.11.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was stayed, vide order dated 10.12.1997. 4. Reply was filed by Sh. Shiv Kumar, SP, Gurdaspur. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. In the petition under Section 482, CrPC, it was alleged by the present petitioner, Pawan Kumar, that there was absolutely no evidence, led by the prosecution, to connect the petitioner with the crime. It was alleged that a fatty person was accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, at the time of the occurrence and that neither the name nor any other particular of the said person was given either in the FIR or even in the statements recorded under Section 161, CrPC, except saying that a fatty person was accompanying Ashok Kumar, accused. It was alleged that since there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, he was never arrested or challaned in the case. It was alleged that since there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime, he was never arrested or challaned in the case. It was further alleged that at the time of trial it, was disclosed for the first time, after three years, by one of the witnesses that the fatty person was Pawan Kumar, giving his particulars, on the basis of information received from some other person, who was not even an eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It was alleged that relying on the statements of PW, Narinder and PW, Suresh Seth, the Public Prosecutor filed application under Section 319 CrPC, for summoning the petitioner as accused. It was alleged that even from the statements of the PWs, it could not be said that the present petitioner was in any way responsible for the crime. In the written reply, filed by Shiv Kumar, SP, Gurdaspur, it was admitted that in the FIR, it was only stated that one fatty person was accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar. It was also admitted that the name of Pawan Kumar did not figure in the FIR or during investigation. It was also admitted that during evidence, Suresh Seth, PW, had only stated in the Court that besides Ashok Kumar, there was one fatty person, whose name was later divulged as Pawan Kumar and as such, Pawan Kumar was rightly summoned as accused in this case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It has been submitted that the power under Section 319, CrPC, to add a person as an additional accused, should be exercised sparingly. Reliance has been placed on the law laid down, in the case reported as Rakesh and anr. v. State of Haryana, 2001(3) Recent Criminal Reports 681 (SC). 8. There is considerable force in the various submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, neither in the FIR nor in the statements under Section 161 CPC, nor during investigation, it had come on the record as to who that fatty person was, who was accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, at the time of the occurrence. By the time when the challan was submitted in the Court, the particulars of the person accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, had not seen the light of the day. By the time when the challan was submitted in the Court, the particulars of the person accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, had not seen the light of the day. After accused Ashok Kumar was charged, the evidence of the prosecution was recorded. During evidence, the prosecution examined PW3, Narinder Kumar, and PW4, Suresh Seth, the two alleged eye- witnesses of the occurrence. Copies of their statements as Annexure P3 and P4 are attached with this petition. PW3, Narinder Kumar, stated in the Court that he had gone to purchase a lottery ticket from a stall, opposite the SP Office at Pathankot and at that time, accused, Ashok Kumar, was also present there and other person was also with him and meanwhile, Satish Kumar came there on a scooter and he was accompanied by another person, namely Suresh Seth and he parked the scooter near the stall. He stated that a fatty person was standing there he told Satish Kumar that he would not spare him and at that time, accused, Ashok Kumar, present in the Court, also abused Satish Kumar, who retaliated in a similar fashion and thereupon, accused, Ashok Kumar, hit Satish Kumar with a bottle. PW4, Suresh Seth, deposed that on the day of occurrence, he was going towards Bus Stand on a scooter alongwith his brother Satish Kumar. He stated that when he reached near the old Bus Stand, opposite the SP office, accused Ashok Kumar and another fatty person "whose name was lateron divulged as Pawan Kumar" were already standing there. He stated that they were about to stop their scooter when Pawan Kumar shouted at Satish Kumar and accused. Ashok Kumar, also abused Satish Kumar and Satish Kumar hurled back the abuses to Ashok Kumar, accused, and thereupon accused, Ashok Kumar, gave a blow with a bottle on his neck. During cross-examination, he stated that he had come to know about the name of Pawan Kumar 3-4 days after the occurrence, as disclosed to him by one Hira Lal. He further stated that he had not mentioned the name of the person who had raised Lalkara in his statement before the Police. He stated that accused, Ashok Kumar, was arrested 4-5 days after the occurrence and that he was called by the Police after his arrest and the accused was in the lock-up at that time. 9. He further stated that he had not mentioned the name of the person who had raised Lalkara in his statement before the Police. He stated that accused, Ashok Kumar, was arrested 4-5 days after the occurrence and that he was called by the Police after his arrest and the accused was in the lock-up at that time. 9. From a persual of the statements of PW3, Narinder Kumar, and PW4, Suresh Seth, the two alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence, it would be clear that even in the court, PW-3, Narinder Kumar, had not named the fatty person who was allegedly accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, at the time of alleged occurrence. Only PW4, Suresh Seth, had stated during examination-in-chief that the name of the fatty person was lateron divulged as Pawan Kumar. During cross-examination, he had stated that he had come to know about Pawan Kumars name 3-4 days after the occurrence. Even in his statement, PW4, Suresh Seth, had nowhere given the parentage and address of Pawan Kumar. He had only stated that the fatty person was Pawan Kumar. There can be hundreds and thousands of Pawan Kumar. It is not understandable as to from where the Public Prosecutor had collected the parentage and address of Pawan Kumar, while filing the application under Section 319, CrPC, inasmuch as in the said application, the Public Prosecutor had sought the summoning of Pawan Kumar son of Ram Dass, resident of Abrol Nagar, Pathankot, as accused in this case (as would be clear from the copy of the order dated 17.11.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge). Furthermore, as per PW4, Suresh Seth, accused, Ashok Kumar, was arrested by the Police 4-5 days after the occurrence and after his arrest, he (suresh Seth) was called by the Police. If Suresh Seth had come to know about the name of the fatty person as Pawan Kumar 3-4 days after the occurrence, in that eventuality, Suresh Seth was expected to disclose the name of Pawan Kumar to the Police when he had gone to the police 4-5 days after the occurrence, after the arrest of accused, Ashok Kumar, as admitted by him during cross-examination. However, it has been admitted by Sh Shiv Kumar, SP, Gurdaspur in the reply that the name of the Pawan Kumar did not figure either in the FIR or during the investigation of the case. However, it has been admitted by Sh Shiv Kumar, SP, Gurdaspur in the reply that the name of the Pawan Kumar did not figure either in the FIR or during the investigation of the case. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, Pawan Kumar could not be summoned as accused in this case merely because PW4, Suresh Seth, had stated that the fatty person, who was accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, was one Pawan Kumar, without giving his parentage and address. Furthermore, even Suresh Seth had stated that his name was disclosed by one Hira Lal. However, neither said Hira Lal was examined as a witness nor there is anything on the record to show that said Hira Lal was an eye-witness to the occurrencer or was present at the spot. Under these circumstances, the saying of Suresh Seth that it was Pawan Kumar who was the fatty person, accompanying accused, Ashok Kumar, could be termed as hear-say and could not be made the basis for summoning the present petitioner as accused in this case. 9. In 2001(3) RCR 681 (supra), it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the power under Section 319, CrPC, should be used very sparingly. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in summoning the present petitioner as accused under Section 319, CrPC, especially when there was absolutely no evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 17.11.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, is set aside. 12. Since the operation of the order dated 17.11.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 10.12.1997, it is directed that the Court shall now proceed against accused Ashok Kumar, in accordance with law.