JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri S.A. Gilani, learned Counsel for the applicants, Smt. Anupama Mehrotra, opposite party No. 2 in person and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants are taken on record. 3. The order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad, in Session Trial No. 217 of 2006, under Sections 498-A, 109, 504, 506, 420, I.P.C. P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, is sought to be quashed in the instant application. 4. The applicant No. 1 is wife of Mohd. Yunus Jilani. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are mother and father. The applicant No. 4 is cousin of Mohd. Yunus Jilani. According to the prosecution version, the opposite party No. 2 and the accused Mohd. Yunus Jilani became acquainted on internet and finally it blossomed in a love affair and thereafter a proposal of marriage on internet. Allegation is that Mohd. Yunus Jilani expressed his inability to live at Moradabad after getting married to the complainant. Smt. Anupama Mehrotra (opposite party No. 2) was Professor in Dayanand Kanya Degree College, Moradabad, whereas Mohd. Yunus Jilani was resident of Srinagar, State of Jammu and Kashmir. The applicants have stated on oath that they were completely ignorant of so-called affair and proposal of the marriage floated on the internet. 5. An application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party No. 2 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, for registration of the F.I.R. Pursuant to the order dated 2.5.2005, First Information Report was registered on 12.5.2005, at case crime No. 531 of 2005, under Sections 105, 120-B, 313, 384, 385, 387, 406, 380, 401, 420, 498-A, 504, 506, I.P.C. Copy of the F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure 1 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. The statement of opposite party No. 2 as well as a number of witnesses was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C., which is part of the record. 6. On perusal of the statements, it transpires that but for the complainant, none of the witnesses levelled allegation against the present applicants. Photocopies of e-mails alleged to be sent by Mohd. Yunus Jilani on different dates have also been brought on record. 7. 6. On perusal of the statements, it transpires that but for the complainant, none of the witnesses levelled allegation against the present applicants. Photocopies of e-mails alleged to be sent by Mohd. Yunus Jilani on different dates have also been brought on record. 7. Counsel for the applicants has tried to stress that in none of e-mails, the name of Mohd. Yunus Jilani is mentioned but identity disclosed is one of Pushpan Sharma. Charge-sheet was submitted by the police against Mohd. Yusuf Jilani on 29.10.2005. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. Accused Mohd. Yusuf Gilani has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.4.2006 in criminal misc. bail application No. 4305 of 2006. Copy of bail order is annexed as Annexure 6 to the affidavit filed in support of the application. Marriage certificate issued by Pt. Krishna Kumar Mishra (Lallan Guru) Mirzapur, is said to be the evidence of marriage between the two. 8. The opposite party No. 2 has also stated in her statement that she moved an application to the I.G. Police, Srinagar, alleging that Mohd. Yunus Jilani demanded dowry. Grievance of the opposite party No. 2 is that the applicants never permitted Mohd. Yunus Jilani to claim her to be her husband on account of interference by the applicants. No charge-sheet has been submitted against the present applicants. The trial proceeded but the Additional Sessions Judge, has summoned the applicants allowing an application moved at the instance of the opposite party No. 2 under Section 193, Cr.P.C. 9. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that exercise of power under Section 193, Cr.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, and direction to the applicants to face Session Trial No. 217 of 2006 is blatantly illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Counsel for the applicants has placed a number of decisions as well as provision of the Code in support of the contention. Section 193, Cr.P.C. is quoted as under : “193. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session.—Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.” 10. Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session.—Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code.” 10. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that after committal proceedings by the Magistrate, the Sessions Judge can only take cognizance against such accused, who have not been charge-sheeted but it appears to the Sessions Judge to have participated in the alleged crime after some evidence is recorded. Section 319, Cr.P.C. is quoted as under : “319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then— (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses reheard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 11. I have perused counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 and rejoinder affidavit. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that an application under Section 193, Cr.P.C. was allowed only on the basis of statement of the complainant under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Conclusion arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge is that the complainant was tortured physically and mentally due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, therefore, prima facie evidence is available against the applicants as well. It is evident that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, summoned the applicants on perusal of the case diary but admittedly no evidence has been recorded during the trial. Impugned order does not reveal whether charge has been framed against Mohd. Yunus Jilani or not. It is apparent that the trial has not proceeded till date. 12. I am in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the applicants that there is no other power, which could be exercised by the Sessions Judge against a person, who was neither charge-sheeted nor was an accused to face the trial but for Section 319, Cr.P.C. Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court; Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1998) 7 SCC 149 , wherein it has been held that there is no power except under Section 319, Cr.P.C. by the Court of Session to array a new person as an accused. There is no intermediary stage at which the Court of Session can add to the array of accused till the stage of Section 230, Cr.P.C. is reached. The Apex Court has further held that ‘Evidence’ envisaged in Section 319, Cr.P.C. is material placed before the trial Court but not collected by the Investigating Officer. After the committal of the case, the statements of the witnesses before the Investigating Officer is not sufficient to summon the accused after committal. The persons other than the accused who has been charge-sheeted can only be summoned by the trial Judge at the stage of Section 319, Cr.P.C. For ready reference, paragraph Nos. 13, 16, 20 of Ranjit Singh’s case (supra) is : “13. It is regarding the last part of the aforesaid observations that serious arguments were addressed by the Counsel urging reconsideration thereof. We have no doubt that with the committal order, the Sessions Court gets unfettered jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences involved in the case. But the crucial question is whether such jurisdiction would envelop powers to summon any person as an accused other than those covered by the committal order. 16. Commitment of a case to the Court of Session will be complete only on compliance with the formalities enumerated in Section 209 which includes dealing with the accused in the manner mentioned therein. 20. 16. Commitment of a case to the Court of Session will be complete only on compliance with the formalities enumerated in Section 209 which includes dealing with the accused in the manner mentioned therein. 20. Thus, once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order, the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. We are unable to find any other power for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. Of course it is not necessary for the Court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers.” 13. This decision was also followed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharam Pal and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 273. 14. Counsel for the applicants has also raised another objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. Admittedly, alleged transaction of marriage was on internet, the accused resides at Srinagar, State of Jummu and Kashmir, therefore, offences alleged if at all was committed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, has no jurisdiction. Proceedings commenced at Moradabad could also not be initiated. However, question of jurisdiction can be raised at the appropriate stage before the Sessions Judge concerned, which shall be decided on merits. In the instant case, admittedly, charge-sheet was submitted against Mohd. Yunus Jilani. Statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. have been brought on record. Counsel for the applicants has tried to place statements as well as evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Documents have also been filed by the opposite party No. 2, who appeared in person before me. 15. I have considered arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties and gone through the impugned order. It is apparent that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was led away and tried to assail the factual aspects and allegation levelled against the accused even before evidence was recorded. The impugned order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad, in Session Trial No. 217 of 2006, on the face of it is erroneous and illegal and is, accordingly quashed. The impugned order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad, in Session Trial No. 217 of 2006, on the face of it is erroneous and illegal and is, accordingly quashed. Proceedings initiated against the applicants is set at naught. The application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. ————