Judgment :- (1.) THIS revisional application has been directed against the order dated 22. 05. 08 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum in S. C. Case No. 30/07 whereby charges were framed under Sections 498a/306, I. P. C. against the petitioner namely, Uttam Kumar Pramanik. (2.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the State. (3.) FOLLOWING the registration of a case under Section 498a/306, I. P. C. against Smt. Gita Rani Pramanik, who happens to be the mother-in-law of the deceased Chumki Pramanik, the accused Smt. Gita Rani Pramanik was arrested. In course of investigation, several witnesses were examined. The Investigating Officer also took the pain of collecting the post mortem report and other medical papers. Eventually, on completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 498a/306, I. P. C. was submitted. The case was duly committed to the Court of Sessions in view of prima facie allegations under Section 306, I. P. C. being levelled against Smt. Gira Rani Pramanik. On perusal of materials on record, the learned Court of Sessions framed charges under Sections 498a/306, I. P. C. against Smt. Gita Rani Pramanik. In course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined. Applying the provision as contained in Section 319 of the Code, the learned Court of Sessions summoned the petitioner Uttam Kumar Pramanik as an accused. (4.) CHALLENGING the order, whereby the petitioner was summoned as an accused and also the order whereby the charges under Section 498a/306, I. P. C. were framed against the petitioner Uttam Kumar Pramanik. Mr. Somnath Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there is no iota of evidence for embarking on the provisions contained in Section 319 of the Code. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the learned Judge misquoted the statement made by P. W. 11, Kartick Sen to the effect that the witness had alleged that the petitioner Uttam Kumar Pramanik had also subjected the deceased Chumki Pramanik to cruelty and ill-treatment and also subjected her to torture during her stay in her matrimonial home. The learned Judge had observed that witnesses had stated that Uttam Kumar Pramanik had allowed his mother Gita Rani Pramanik and his sister Chandana Kayal to inflict torture and ill-treatment on his wife called Chumki Pramanik. The learned Judge had observed that witnesses had stated that Uttam Kumar Pramanik had allowed his mother Gita Rani Pramanik and his sister Chandana Kayal to inflict torture and ill-treatment on his wife called Chumki Pramanik. The statement of P. W. 11 Kartick Sen has not been properly read between the lines. The impugned order for issuance of summons against the petitioner and subsequent order as to framing of charge are, this liable to be set aside, as contended by Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate of the petitioner. (5.) MR. S. S. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the State is fair enough to concede that there was no material whatsoever before the trial Court for issuance of summons against the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that never before the trial Court did the witnesses state that the petitioner Uttam Kumar Pramanik had subjected Smt, Chumki Pramanik to torture and ill-treatment. The Issuance of summons against the petitioner was not warranted, as submitted by Mr. Roy. (6.) I have gone through the statements made during the investigation. The witnesses did not say anything about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged commission of torture on his wife. All the accusations were directed against the other accused called Gita Rani Pramanik. During the course of trial, the informant Chandi Charan Sadhu, who happens to be the father of deceased Chumki Pramanik, testified that the father-in-law and husband of her daughter had treated his daughter with love. He alleged that torture and ill-treatment had been inflicted by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law on his daughter. P. W. 10 Avijit Sadhu also deposed that Chumki Pramanik had confided to him that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had ill-treated and tortured her. He also did not utter a single word against the petitioner Uttam Kumar Pramanik. P. W. 2 to 9 did not say a single word against the petitioner. In answering to the question put by the Court, P. W. 11 Kartick Sen stated that the deceased Chumki Pramanik never disclosed to him that her husband Uttam Kumar Pramanik had subjected her to ill-treatment and cruelty. All that she stated to the witness P. W. 11 that when torture and ill-treatment being inflicted on her by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, her husband had not raised any protest. All that she stated to the witness P. W. 11 that when torture and ill-treatment being inflicted on her by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, her husband had not raised any protest. Simply on the basis of such statement, the learned Court of Sessions took the view that there was sufficient material for summoning the petitioner as an accused. (7.) AS underlined in the case of Kailash v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2008)1 C Cr LR (SC) 641, merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of a person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 of the Code would be used by the Court. It is only after the legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the concerned person has committed an offence, that the provisions of Section 319, Cr. P. C. would be invoked. It has been highlighted that the discretion under Section 319, Cr. P. C. has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution. (8.) THE statements made during the trial did not prima facie make out any offence under Sections 498a/306, I. P. C. against the present petitioner. The statements made by P. W. 1 did not indicate that any offence was committed by the petitioner. Instead of being circumspect in exercising the power under Section 319, Cr. P. C., the learned Court of Sessions took the hasty decision of summoning the petitioner as an accused without any material whatsoever before him. There was nothing on record to frame charges under Sections 498a/306, I. P. C. against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge did not consider the statements made by the informant and other witnesses Some of the witnesses did make allegations against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased called Chumki Pramanik. In fact, the witnesses disclosed that Chumki Pramanik had been treated with love and affection by her husband. In view of the materials on record, the issuance of process and framing of charges against the petitioner are not justified. The impugned order thus, calls for interference. (9.) ACCORDINGLY, the present revisonal application is allowed. The orders dated 03. 04. 08 and 22. 5. 08 whereby process was issued and charges were framed against the petitioners are hereby set aside.