Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 40812-M of 2007 titled Rupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Crl. Misc. No. 18385-M of 2007 titled Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitioners. 2. For facility the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. 40812-M o f 2007. 3. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 106 dated 11.12.2001 registered under Sections 323/406/498-A IPC registered at police station Raikot District Ludhiana as well as summoning order dated 31.1.2007 by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. attached as Annexure P.5. 4. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast track Court), Ludhiana dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 2.7.2007. However, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition for quashing of FIR and challenge to the order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the learned trial court as well as order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana attached as Annexure P.6. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been passed on the statement of Smt. Rashmi Rani. In her examination-in-chief she alleged that the petitioner, was interested with utensils, food process dinner-set and some article of kitchen. The petitioner is a married sister of Navraj Singh husband of the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the summoning order qua the petitioner has been passed without completing the cross- examination of complainant Rashmi Rani. Thus, there was no admissible evidence on record to connect the petitioner wish the crime. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further is that powers under section 319 Cr. P.C. can be exercised only after the court arrives at its satisfaction that there exists possibility that the accused so summoned is likely to be convicted and such satisfaction can only be arrived at on completion of the cross-examination. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Safi v. Mohd. Rafiq, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 762 : 2007(2) RAJ 534 : JT 2007(5) SC 562. 6. Mr. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd Safi v. Mohd. Rafiq, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 762 : 2007(2) RAJ 534 : JT 2007(5) SC 562. 6. Mr. A.S. Jattana, lelanred counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 by placing reliance on the order passed by the learned Magistrate contends that in the present case the witness was not cross-examined and therefore, the authority relied upon by the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of this case. 7. However, the record shows that cross-examination was deferred on the request of the prosecution. Thus, cross-examination of the witness is not complete and therefore, the order passed under section 319 Cr. P.C. cannot be sustained in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Honble Supreme Court in Mohd. Safis case (supra). 8. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P.5 and P.6 are ordered to be quashed. Learned trial court would be at liberty to pass an order if so warranted after the completion of the cross-examination and other evidence which may be brought on record by the prosecution.