JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek direction to quash order dated 16.6.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby he has confirmed the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, adding the applicants-Karan Singh, Laman Singh, Rajkumar Singh, Rajveer Singh and rlukarn Singh to be tried along with the other accused persons in Criminal Case No. 257/98 for offences under Sections 148,147, 427, 447 and 149, I.P.C., on the application filed by the complainant-Man Singh under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that on 24.7.1997, respondent No. 2-Man Singh submitted a written report before the S.H.O., Police Station, Govindgarh, District-Jaipur, alleging therein that the accused persons, in Jeep and tractors, entered in his field and destroyed the crop. After usual investigation, the Police laid charge sheet against some of the accused persons. As far as petitioners Karan Singh, Laxman Singh and Rajkumar Singh are concerned, the police submitted a negative report. As regards accused Rajveer Singh and Hukam Singh, the police continued the investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. During trial, statements of 14 witnesses have been recorded. At this stage, the complainant filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add the present petitioners as accused in view of the statements of PW 1 Nathuram, PW 2 Chhitar Singh, PW 3 Narain Singh, PW 6 Amar Singh and PW 8 Prabhu Dayal. The order of the learned Magistrate, adding the accused, was challenged by way of revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Jaipur. The learned Judge did not consider it a fit case to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate in revisional jurisdiction. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate. It appears that there is a family dispute with respect to certain property. There are vague and general allegations that 15 to 20 persons entered in the field and destroyed the crop. The names of the petitioners do not appear in the F.I.R. The complainant and the accused persons are known to each other being the close relatives. It appears that there is a family dispute with respect to certain property. There are vague and general allegations that 15 to 20 persons entered in the field and destroyed the crop. The names of the petitioners do not appear in the F.I.R. The complainant and the accused persons are known to each other being the close relatives. If they were present on the spot, there was no reason for the complainant not to mention their names in the F.I.R. Thus, there is clearly an improvement by some of the witnesses during the trial. It is a matter of common experience that the complainant with a view to settle the score, mere particularly in a case where there is a family dispute, tries to implicate as many accused as he can. This may satisfy the ego of the complainant, but the cause of justice is defeated as the trial is prolonged and the cases remained pending. It is a plain case of criminal trespass. In my view, adding five accused persons and recalling all the fourteen witnesses whose statements have been recorded, would cause a serious miscarriage of justice and delay the trial. Such sort of tactics adopted by the complainant deserve to be curbed. Thus, in order to secure the ends of justice, the order of the learned Magistrate adding the accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deserves to be interfered with. 5. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 16.2.2003 and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chomu dated 22.5.2000 adding accused petitioners in Criminal Case No. 257/98 is quashed and set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial.Petition allowed. *******