JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. When the case was called out, none appeared on behalf of petitioners either to press this petition or to make a prayer for adjournment. Despite valid service of notice on opposite party no. 2, he has not preferred to appear either personally or through Advocate. However, I have heard Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned Add!. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. I have also perused the materials available on the record particularly the impugned order. 2. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), have prayed for quashing of an order dated 16.12.2000 passed by Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Tr. No. 144 of 2000 arising out of Muzaffarpur P.S. Case No. 235 of 1995. By the said order, while allowing a petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate had summoned these two petitioners to face trial alongwith other accused persons against whom the trial has almost concluded. 3. Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of opposite party no. 2, a first information report vide Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 235 of 1995 was registered on 4.11.1995 for offences under Sections 147, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). In the first information report fifteen persons were arrayed as accused. After registering the first information report, police investigated the case and finally charge-sheet was submitted against twelve accused persons. The police did not forward these two petitioners and one another person to face trial. Meaning thereby, that these petitioners and one another person were exonerated by the police since no material indicating their involvement was found by the investigating officer. After submission of the charge-sheet, on 15.6.1996 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur took cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 342 and 323 of the IPC and summoned the charge-sheeted accused persons. Thereafter, on 6.8.1996 charges were framed against accused persons under Sections 342 and 323 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 6.7.2000 the evidence of the prosecution was closed, on 8.8.2000 defence evidence was also closed and finally argument on behalf of the defence was also concluded on 18.8.2000. Subsequently, learned Addl. Thereafter, on 6.8.1996 charges were framed against accused persons under Sections 342 and 323 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 6.7.2000 the evidence of the prosecution was closed, on 8.8.2000 defence evidence was also closed and finally argument on behalf of the defence was also concluded on 18.8.2000. Subsequently, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to summon these petitioners and one Devendra Rai to face trial alongwith other accused persons. It was asserted that in course of recording evidence sufficient materials were brought on record showing involvement of these petitioners and one Devendra Rai. The petition filed on behalf of the prosecution was allowed on 16.12.2000 and aggrieved with the said order the petitioners filed the present petition. This court by order dated 28.1.2002, while admitting the case, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 16.12.2000 and the stay order is still continuing. 4. Without entering into the merit of the case, this order is being passed only on limited point as to whether for such trivial offence at the stage of argument of the prosecution, that too, at such a belated stage, the learned court below was justified to entertain a petition filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C? The court is of the opinion that if the impugned order is not interfered with, the petitioners will have to participate in the criminal proceeding for the alleged offence which was committed in the year 1995. Besides the agony of the petitioners, the other accused persons, who right from the very beginning were participating in the proceeding, will be directed to face a de novo trial and it will further delay the conclusion of the trial. This court is of the opinion that, in such a situation particularly for such trivial offence at a belated stage, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Time without number it has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court that the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of course. In a case reported in 2009 (1) PLJR (SC)167 (Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand) at paragraph-11 it has been observed as follows: "Paragraph 11. Section 319 of the Code is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. In a case reported in 2009 (1) PLJR (SC)167 (Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand) at paragraph-11 it has been observed as follows: "Paragraph 11. Section 319 of the Code is a special provision. It seeks to meet an extraordinary situation. It although confers a power of wide amplitude but is required to be exercised very sparingly. Before an order summoning an accused is passed, the trial court must form an opinion on the basis of the evidences brought before it that a case has been made out that such person could be tried together with the other accused." 5. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 16.12.2000 passed by Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Tr. No.144 of 2000 arising out of Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 235 of 1995 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed.