JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - Charanjit Singh Channi, Gurbachan Singh and Talwinder Singh @ Raju have filed Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2002 against order dated 2.2.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby they were summoned under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to face trial alongwith their co-accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 etc. Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on the night intervening 29/30.4.2000, the police of Police Post Maksudan visited the Dera of Kewal Singh uncle or Nirvair Singh, complainant, situate at Village Lidran at about 12.15 mid- night. The police had visited the Dera on the complaint of Piara Singh. However, Kewal Singh and his sons were not found present, so, the police officials took Manjinder Singh son of Kashmir Singh son of wifes sister of Kewal Singh alongwith them. Later on, Nirvair Singh came to know about this fact. He alongwith his brother, Dalbir Singh (now deceased) and Daljit Singh went to the Police Post Maksudan and reached there at about 1.15 A.M. (mid- night). At that time, Karnail Singh Dhillon, Charanjit Singh Channi, Raju son of Gurbachan Singh and Gurbachan Singh were sitting with the Munshi inside the police post. Munshi told Nirvair Singh etc. to sit in the office as the people of other party were sitting with him. Nirvair Singh etc. instead of sitting inside the office went out and stood near the outer gate of the police post. In the meantime, Karnail Singh Dhillon alongwith his companions came out of the police post and started abusing Nirvair Singh etc. At that moment, Nirvair Singh etc. tried to go inside the gate but in the meantime, Karnail Singh Dhillon took out his revolver and fired 3/4 shots at Dalbir Singh and upon receipt of injuries, Dalbir Singh fell down. 3. Case bearing FIR No. 207 was registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar on 30.4.2000 under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code on the statement of Nirvair Singh. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the said FIR. 4. The investigation was conducted by SHO/Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, and after investigation he submitted the report against Karnail Singh Dhillon only and found the other persons, namely, Charanjit Singh Channi, Talwinder Singh @ Raju son of Gurbachan Singh and Gurbachan Singh innocent. 5. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the said FIR. 4. The investigation was conducted by SHO/Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, and after investigation he submitted the report against Karnail Singh Dhillon only and found the other persons, namely, Charanjit Singh Channi, Talwinder Singh @ Raju son of Gurbachan Singh and Gurbachan Singh innocent. 5. After about three months of the incident, on 24.8.2000, Nirvair Singh filed criminal complaint titled Nirvair Singh v. Karnail Singh Dhillon and others including Charanjit Singh Channi, Raju and Gurbachan Singh. The said complaint is Annexure P-2. In the complaint, DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh and ASI Sewak Singh were also named as accused. After recording preliminary evidence, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 10.9.2001 summoned only Karnail Singh Dhillon as accused and held that no case was made out against the remaining persons. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, Nirvair Singh filed revision petition vide Annexure P-3 in the court of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which is still stated to be pending. 7. The State case bearing FIR No. 207 was committed to the Court of Sessions. Nirvair Singh moved an application under Section 319 of the Code of Civil (Criminal ?) Procedure for summoning Charanjit Singh Channi, Gurbachan Singh son of Darshan Singh, Talwinder Singh @ Raju, DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh and ASI Sewak Singh in the array of the accused. Vide order dated 2.2.2002, Annexure P-5, the District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Summoned Charanjit Singh Channi, Gurbachan Singh son of Darshan Singh and Talwinder Singh @ Raju as accused under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for facing trial under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code alongwith Karnail Singh Dhillon accused. However, he did not summon DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh and ASI Sewak Singh. 8. Aggrieved by the order of summoning, Charanjit Singh Channi etc. have filed Criminal Revision No. 246 of 2002. 9. Nirvair Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 669 of 2002 against the order refusing to summon DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh ASI Sewak Singh. Since, both the Criminal Revision Petitions have arisen from the common order and the accused related to the same occurrence, so, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 10. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kumar, counsel for the petitioners (in Crl. Since, both the Criminal Revision Petitions have arisen from the common order and the accused related to the same occurrence, so, both the revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 10. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kumar, counsel for the petitioners (in Crl. Revisions No. 246 of 2002), Shri H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Shri Hari Chand, counsel for the petitioner (in Crl. Revision No. 669 of 2002 and for the complainant in Crl. Revision No. 246 of 2002), Shri G.S. Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondent (in Crl. Revision No. 246 of 2002) and carefully gone through the record. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent in Crl. Revision No. 699 of 2002. 11. Counsel for the petitioners Charanjit Singh Channi etc. contended that the Court had got the power to summon the additional accused under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code but the said power has to be exercised sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as a handle at the hands of the complainant to cause harassment to the persons who are not involved in the commission of crime. For this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of this Court i.e. Dr. Sant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 719, which supported the above contention of the learned counsel. He further contended that although Court had discretionary power to summon a person as an additional accused to stand trial but it is not enough that Court entertain some doubt about the involvement in the offence but it must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected to summon a person under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code and there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against the other persons. For this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of the Honble Apex Court in Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 75, which supported the above contention of learned counsel. It has been further stated in the said authority that mere suspicion is not sufficient to summon a person but there should be reasonable prospect of convicting him of the offence. 11A. In the present case, the case bearing FIR No. 207 dated 30.4.2000 was registered at the statement of Nirvair Singh, which is at Annexure P-1. It has been further stated in the said authority that mere suspicion is not sufficient to summon a person but there should be reasonable prospect of convicting him of the offence. 11A. In the present case, the case bearing FIR No. 207 dated 30.4.2000 was registered at the statement of Nirvair Singh, which is at Annexure P-1. It is specifically stated in the FIR that when they were standing near the outer gate of Chowki, then Karnail Singh Dhillon alongwith his other companions came out of the police post and started abusing and the moment they tried to go inside the gate, then Karnail Singh Dhillon took out his revolver from the Dubb and fired 3/4 shots on Dalbir Singh and Dalbir Singh fell down. Then he was immediately taken to Sacred Hospital, Maksudan but he breathed his last in the way. It is further stated that the accused ran away from the spot leaving behind Gypsy bearing No. PB-080-5265 and the revolver. Thus, it was Karnail Singh Dhillon alone who had taken out revolver and fired 3-4 shots at Dalbir Singh and Dilbir Singh fell down. It is not the case that Karnail Singh Dhillon was having revolver in his hand and they had come out from the place where they were sitting with the Munshi with the common intention to murder Dalbir Singh. It has been stated by the Honble Supreme Court in Ajay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 74 that where the appellant did not know that his co-accused having a Kirpan under his stocking, then he is not liable to be convicted under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. In the present case also, the petitioners did not know that Karnail Singh Dhillon would take out a revolver and would fire shots. He, all of a sudden, took out the revolver from the Dubb and fired 3-4 shots on Dalbir Singh, due to which he fell down. Thus, the petitioners are not liable with the aid of Section 34 because prima-facie, they did not share the common attention (intention ?). The statement of Daljit Singh Gill, who was witness of the occurrence, was recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and the same is at Annexure P-6. Thus, the petitioners are not liable with the aid of Section 34 because prima-facie, they did not share the common attention (intention ?). The statement of Daljit Singh Gill, who was witness of the occurrence, was recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and the same is at Annexure P-6. He stated in his statement that Karnail Singh Dhillon started abusing his maternal uncle and started quarrelling and then Dhillon and Dalbir Singh came into grips and Dhillon took out his revolver from his Dubb and fired 3-4 shots upon his maternal uncle, Dalbir Singh and he tell fell down after receiving injuries. He next stated that Karnail Singh Dhillon alongwith his revolver ran away from the spot, leaving behind his Gypsy. Therefore, he, in his statement also, had named only Karnail Singh Dhillon as the culprit who had murdered Dalbir Singh and not others. The complaint, Annexure P-2, was filed on 24.8.2000 i.e. after about three months of the incident. The complainant in said complaint changed his version. He even changed the place of occurrence of the alleged murder. In the FIR, it was stated that murder was committed outside the police post near the outer gate but in the complaint it was stated that the murder was committed in the room of the Munshi inside the police post and also made three police officers as accused. It is further stated in the complaint that Manjinder Singh, who was brought by the police was sitting on the floor of the room of the Munshi and had witnessed the entire incident. He was also cited as a witness in the complaint but was not examined. The examination-in-chief of Nirvair was recorded in the State case in the Court as PW-1. He stated in the statement that on the night intervening 29/30.4.2000, ASI Sewak Singh alongwith police officials had visited the Dera of his Uncle Kewal Singh at about 12.15 A.M. mid-night on the complaint of Piara Singh and since Karnail Singh and his sons were not present there, so, he took Manjinder Singh son of Kashmir Singh alongwith him to police post Maksudan. He next stated that he alongwith his brother Dalbir Singh and one Daljit Singh Gill went to Police Post Maksudan and reached there at about 1 or 1.15 A.M. and found Karnail Singh Dhillon, Channi, Gurbachan Singh and Talwinder Singh @ Raju sitting in the police post. He next stated that he alongwith his brother Dalbir Singh and one Daljit Singh Gill went to Police Post Maksudan and reached there at about 1 or 1.15 A.M. and found Karnail Singh Dhillon, Channi, Gurbachan Singh and Talwinder Singh @ Raju sitting in the police post. He further stated that DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh and ASI Sewak Singh were also present in the police post, who all were taking liquor and Manjinder Singh was made to sit on the floor and then Channi saw them and said that Dalbir Singh was the cause of all trouble and he should be finished. Then Gurbachan Singh said that Dalbir Singh was in their grip and only his dead body should go and then Talwinder Singh @ Raju stated that after Dalbir Singh was killed, then they could get possession of the land and then DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu stated that there was no need to wait and he must be killed and further SI Rajbir Singh exhorted Karnail Singh Dhillon as to for what purpose, he was having his revolver and his enemy should be killed. He next stated that then all of them proceeded towards them and Karnail Singh took out his revolver and fired at Dalbir Singh 3-4 times and Dalbir Singh fell on the ground. He also stated that DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, ASI Sewak Singh told Channi, Gurbachan Singh and Talwinder Singh @ Raju to go out of the police post and they would handle the matter and then they went away in their Gypsy and Karnail Singh Dhillon had taken away the revolver with him. Thus, the version, as stated by Nirvair Singh in his statement, appears to be an thought up version. It is not the case that the police had not recorded the statements of Nirvair Singh and Daljit Singh correctly and immediately after the FIR was recorded, Nirvair Singh had made a complaint to the higher officers of the police against high- handedness of the police and not recording the FIR correctly. Even the Judicial Magistrate did not believe the version of Nirvair Singh in the complaint and summoned only Karnail Singh Dhillon who had fired 3-4 shots aiming at Dalbir Singh. Even the Judicial Magistrate did not believe the version of Nirvair Singh in the complaint and summoned only Karnail Singh Dhillon who had fired 3-4 shots aiming at Dalbir Singh. It has been observed in Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 280 that following factors should be taken into consideration for invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :- (i) The doubt about the involvement of the other accused has no place. (ii) Discretionary power so vested in Criminal Procedure Code under these provisions should be exercised to advance the cause of criminal justice. (iii) There is compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other accused. (iv) The power vested in this section is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly. 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 75 relied." 12. Thus, Charanjit Singh Channi etc. cannot be involved merely on doubt and there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against them. The power vested in this Section is an extra ordinary power which has to be exercised very sparingly. No case is made out in the present case against Charanjit Singh Channi, Gurbachan Singh, Talwinder Singh @ Raju, DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh and ASI Sewak Singh because they did not share common object with Karnail Singh Dhillon as Karnail Singh Dhillon, all of a sudden, took out the revolver from his Dubb and fired at Dalbir Singh 3-4 times, resulting injuries on his person and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries within a few hours. Certainly, Chanan Singh Channi etc. did not know that Karnail Singh Dhillon was carrying a revolver in his Dubb. Thus, I hold that no case is made out for summoning the aforesaid six persons. 13. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 669 of 2002 for setting aside the order of learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, and for summoning DSP Rajpal Singh Sandhu, SI Rajbir Singh and ASI Sewak Singh is dismissed. However, the Criminal Revision Petition No. 246 of 2002 is accepted and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the order dated 2.2.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby Charanjit Singh Channi etc. were summoned under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code to face trial under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, is quashed. Petition allowed.