JUDGMENT Harbans Lal, J:.- This petition has been moved by Paramjit Kaur for quashing the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) for an offence under Section 304-B of IPC with alternative offence of Section 302 of IPC (Annexure P-4) father of deceased Manpreet Kaur got lodged this FIR on the allegations that the marriage of his aforesaid daughter was solemnized with Jagjit Singh about two and half years before this unfortunate incident Jagjit Singh, the husband) Mehar Singh) father-in-law, Swam Kaur, mother-in-law and Parmjit Kaur, sister-in-law of the deceased were arraigned as accused in the FIR. During inquiry/investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent and she was discharged by the learned trial Court. On 8.11.2007, after recording partly cross-examination of the complainant, Kuldip Singh as PW-1) an application under Section 319 of the Code was moved by the prosecution for summoning of the petitioner, Paramjit Kaur. The same was allowed on 28. 11.2007 vide Annexure P-4 by the learned trial Court. She was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 18.12.2007- to face trial under Section 304-B of IPC with an alternative offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. 3. Mr. P. S. Khurana, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged with great eloquence that as is borne out from Annexure P-3, the aforesaid application was moved before conclusion of the cross­examination of Kuldip Singh, PW which obviously is in teeth with the rule laid down by the Apex Court in the authority, Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Raflq and another, [2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1530] : 2007 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 762 and, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. To tide over this contention, Ms Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State, maintained that summoning of the petitioner and that being so, no hole can be picked in the order, to which challenge has been posed by the petitioner. 5. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 6. What is ‘evidence’, has been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 5. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. 6. What is ‘evidence’, has been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. As per the same, only on completion of the cross-examination, the statements of a witness falls within the fold of Section 3 ibid. As ruled lately by the Apex Court in re: Mohd. Safi (supra) “before a Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction in terms of Section 319, Cr.P.C, it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. Such satisfaction can be arrived at, inter alia, upon completion of the cross-examination of the said witness.” Thus, if the matter is viewed in the background of these observations, the statement of Kuldip Singh being incomplete, application under Section 319 of the Code could neither be moved nor allowed. In the impugned order, Annexure P-4, it has been merely mentioned that "after going through the record of the case, I find that the name of Paramjit Kaur has been categorically deposed by Kuldip Singh PW-1 and her name also figures in the FIR. The testimony of Kuldip Singh is further corroborated by various documents in the report under, Section 175 of the Code and the statement of PW recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.” Ostensibly, it has no where been stated that after appreciating the statement of Kuldip Singh (sic), the Court has arrived at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused (sic) in all like would be convicted under challenge suffers from illegality, infirmity, material irregularity and is perverse on the face of it. Sequelly, the same is set aside with a direction to the learned trial Court to complete the cross-examination of the aforementioned witness Kuldip Singh and then dispose of the application afresh keeping in view the afore-extracted observations. Disposed of accordingly. ----------------------------