A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition filed under Section 482 cr. P. C. , the petitioner/accused assails the correctness of the order dated 06-12-2004 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, suryapet in Crl. M. P. No. 5269 of 2004 in c. C. No. 390 of 2002, impleading her as accused No. 5 in C. C. No. 390 of 2002 on an application filed by the prosecution. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, the police registered a case in cr. No. 141 of 2002 for the alleged offence under Section 420 IPC against A-1 to A-4 and A-5 and after due investigation into the said crime laid charge-sheet on 21-08-2002 against four persons only, namely, A-1 to a-4, which was taken cognizance by the judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet in c. C. No. 390 of 2002 for the offence under section 420 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act, 1961. Basing upon statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and other evidence in the chief examination of p. W. 1 recorded on 30-08-2004 the prosecution filed the above petition stating that the evidence recorded discloses that along with A-1 to A-4 petitioner herein-sister of A-2 abused P. W. 1 and his mother in a most indecent manner and beat them when they requested to marry Sankoju sumathi who is the sister of P. W. 1 and he also stated that along with A-1 to A-4, petitioner cheated and ruined the life of LW. 1 and her involvement is evident from the 161 statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and by oversight petitioner has not been arrayed as accused. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order allowed the petition adding the petitioner as A-5 in C. C. Questioning the validity and legality of the said order present petition is filed contending that the learned magistrate without giving notice to the petitioner allowed Crl. M. P. filed by the prosecution; he has not understood the scope of Section 319 Cr. P. C. ; the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to add the petitioner as accused No. 5 under section 319 Cr. M. P. filed by the prosecution; he has not understood the scope of Section 319 Cr. P. C. ; the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to add the petitioner as accused No. 5 under section 319 Cr. P. C is not maintainable and on filing the report the complainant if aggrieved has to file an objection for the same but not a petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends once the defacto-complainant has not chosen to file protest petition, it is not open for the Assistant Public Prosecutor to file a petition under Section 319 Cr. P. C. when the police laid the charge-sheet which was accepted by the Magistrate, the same would amount to discharge the petitioner of the charge and the said order cannot be reviewed. ( 5 ) PER contra, learned Additional Public prosecutor contends that in spite of mentioning the name of the petitioner in the complaint, and his involvement in the crime, police by over sight has not shown her as accused and the same can be added in view of evidence of P. W. 1 recorded which clearly establishes the involvement of the petitioner, therefore, she can be impleaded and the magistrate exercised the jurisdiction to implead her. This Court cannot quash the said order. ( 6 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 319 makes it clear that it operates in an ongoing inquiry into, or trial of, an offence. In order to apply section 319, it is thus essential that the need to proceed against the person other than the accused, appearing to be guilty of offence, arises only on evidence recorded in the course of any inquiry or trial, wherefrom the court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it is also involved in the commission of the crime and can be tried along with other accused. ( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Municipal corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi held that the order under Section 319 Cr. P. C. summoning a person can be made on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein even when the proceedings had earlier been quashed, a person can be proceeded with, a note of caution was added that the power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. was discretionary and had to be used sparingly only on the existence of compelling reasons. P. C. summoning a person can be made on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein even when the proceedings had earlier been quashed, a person can be proceeded with, a note of caution was added that the power under Section 319 Cr. P. C. was discretionary and had to be used sparingly only on the existence of compelling reasons. ( 8 ) IN Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation construing the words "the court may proceed against such person" in section 319 Cr. P. C. the Supreme Court held that the power is discretionary and should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and that the court should not turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. It was further held that judicial exercise is calied for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has already proceeded and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. The court while examining an application under section 319 Cr. P. C. , has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceeding against other persons. In a nutshell, it means that for exercise of discretion under Section 319 Cr. P. C. all relevant factors, including the one noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come in record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused. ( 9 ) IN ihe light of the judgments as above, the facts in the present case disclose involvement of the petitioner. L. W. 1 stated in the complaint and also in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. but the prosecution while laying the charge-sheet observed the reasoning for deletion of her name which reads as under:"the involvement of Rajeswari w/o Deenadayal whose name mentioned in FIR was deleted from the charge of offence since she is away from the family members of the accused. "as per the evidence/statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation under Section 161 and also examination of p. W. 1 by the Court discloses her participation. "as per the evidence/statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation under Section 161 and also examination of p. W. 1 by the Court discloses her participation. Further it was stated that the video cassette, which was produced clearly shows that Rajeswari presented a bangle watch to L. W. 1 - Sumathi. In view of the evidence available about her participation along with A-1 to A-4 in cheating the complainant, the lower Court rightly added the petitioner as A-5. ( 10 ) IN Rakesh v. State of Haryana on examination of prosecution witnesses and when her cross-examination has begun, public prosecutor moved an application under section 319 Cr. P. C. for arraying Rakesh as additional accused, which was allowed by the trial Judge and the revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the High court on further appeal the question which was raised before the Supreme Court was whether the statement of a prosecution witness without, the said witness having been cross-examined, constitutes evidence; within the meaning of Section 319 Cr. P. C. , 1973. The Supreme Court after noticing the clarification made by it in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab i. e. , " of course, it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers. " held that term evidence as used in section 319, Criminal Procedure Code would mean evidence which is tested by cross- examination. The question of testing the evidence by cross-examination would arise only after addition of the accused and there is no question of cross-examining the witness prior to adding such person as accused. The word evidence occurring in sub-section is used in comprehensive and broad sense, which would also include the material collected by the Investigating Officer and the material or evidence, which comes before the Court and from which the Court can prima facie conclude that person not arraigned before it is involved in the commission of the crime. Holding so dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the trial judge. In view of the same, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been omitted by the police while laying the charge-sheet cannot be added later stage, which amounts to discharge cannot be accepted. Holding so dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the trial judge. In view of the same, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has been omitted by the police while laying the charge-sheet cannot be added later stage, which amounts to discharge cannot be accepted. Since the crime was taken cognizance on laying charge- sheet by the police but not on the private complaint, submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution cannot file petition under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , cannot be countenanced. ( 11 ) SIMILARLY, the submission of the learned counsel that the Magistrate cannot allow the petition without issuing notice to the petitioner, is only a fallacy, for the reason, as it is fairly well settled issue of a process is preliminary stage, satisfaction may be done either by examination of complainant under section 200 or under enquiry under section 201 and there is no requirement of hearing before summoning the accused. ( 12 ) IN view of the same, no illegality is discernable to the order passed by the learned magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction and arraying the petitioner as accused No. 5. ( 13 ) CRIMINAL Petition is accordingly dismissed.