ORDER : Leave granted. 2. The challenge in this case is to the impugned judgment of the High Court, setting aside the Order of the Sessions Court and directing that the appellant be summoned as accused under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Sessions trial relates to an incident dated 18th August, 1987 in which two persons lost their lives. The investigation had been transferred by local police to C.B.C.I.D. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against 8 persons. The appellants, though named in the F.I.R., were not charge-sheeted. After examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2, an application was filed before trial court under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the informant praying for summoning the appellants as accused. That application was dismissed more than a decade ago i.e. on 25th May, 1992 and the trial proceeded against the accused who had been charge-sheeted. The Order dated 25th May, 1992 was not challenged either by the informant or by the State. It attained finality. Subsequently, after examination of another witness i.e. P.W.3, a second application for similar relief was filed by the informant. This second application was also dismissed by the Sessions Court by Order dated 7th August, 1997. This latter Order was challenged by the informant before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order has set aside the Order dated 7th August, 1997 as also the earlier Order dated 25th May, 1992 noticing that though 1992 Order was neither challenged by the State nor by the informant, the Court in exercise of power of superintendence can set aside that order as well. 4. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside even the 1992 order in exercise of its power of superintendence, has not been challenged but the contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that while exercising the discretionary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to have regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on the facts of the case, setting aside of the two orders i.e. one of 1992 and the other of 1997 impugned in the Revision Petition was unwarranted. We find merit in the contention. We find merit in the contention. It is not the law that the moment a witness utters the name of a person who has not been arrayed as an accused, when an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is filed, it has to be allowed automatically. The facts and circumstances of each case are required to be examined including the stage of the trial and other relevant factors. 5. In the present case none of these aspects were not kept in view by the High Court. The incident relates to the year 1987. The impugned order was passed by the High Court in April, 2002. The first application had been dismissed, as above noticed, in the year 1992. It was not challenged. The court proceeded with the trial after dismissal of the first application. The second application was dismissed by the trial court in the year 1997. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, in our view, it was not a fit case for exercise of power of superintendence to suo moto recall the order after a period of 10 years and also to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment. 6. The appeal, for the reasons aforesaid, is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. We direct the expeditious trial of the Sessions Case having regard to the fact that more than 15 years have already elapsed since the incident had taken place.