Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been filed by the accused-petitioners against the impugned order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 333/2010 (State Vs. Istiyak and Others) arising out of case Crime No. 375/06, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Biswan District Sitapur whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code and summoned the accused-petitioners to participate in the case. The only question involves in the present petition is the legality of the impugned order which can be decided without issuing notice to the opposite party no. 3 as no prejudice is going to be caused to her. Therefore, with the consent of learned A.G.A. the petition is being finally disposed of at this stage to curtain the further delay in the trial. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on the written report of the opposite party no. 3, the police of P.S. Biswan, District Sitapur registered a case at Crime No. 375/06, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused-Istiyaq, Jameela Begum, Talat Jahan, Istikhar Ali, Reshma, Irshad Ali, Rukkaiya and Mohd. Ikram for investigation. The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case did not find the involvement of Jameela Begum, Reshma, Talat Jahan, and Rukaiya Bano, therefore, he exonerated them while submitting the charge-sheet against the other accused. The accused were charged by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution at the trial examined Smt. Sheebanaz as P.W. 1. After the cross-examination of P.W. 1, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code to summon the accused Jameela Begum, Reshma, Talat Jahan, and Rukaiya Bano. The application was opposed by the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application moved by the prosecution moved under Section 319 of the Code vide impugned order which has given rise to the present petition. The application was opposed by the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application moved by the prosecution moved under Section 319 of the Code vide impugned order which has given rise to the present petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court has ample power to summon any person as an accused under Section 319 of the Code if his involvement in commission of the alleged offence is established on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. A person cannot be summoned as an accused only on the basis of application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code. The court while invoking its power under Section 319 of the Code has to record its satisfaction that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, the involvement of the accused in commission of the alleged offence is established and there is possibility of his conviction on the basis of such evidence. But in this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offence is established and there is possibility of their conviction. The impugned order is, therefore, bad in the eye of law which liable to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. although opposed the petition and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate but fairly accepts that the learned Judicial Magistrate has not accorded his satisfaction. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. The established principle of law for summoning a person as an accused under Section 319 of the Code is that the Court while invoking its power under Section 319 of the Code has to record its satisfaction that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution the involvement of the person to be summoned as an accused is established and there is possibility of his conviction. In this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction on the point that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution the involvement of the accused in commission of the alleged offence is established and there is possibility of their conviction. In this case, the learned Judicial Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction on the point that on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution the involvement of the accused in commission of the alleged offence is established and there is possibility of their conviction. The impugned order is, therefore, bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Judicial Magistrate. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Sitapur in Criminal Case No. 333/2010 (State Vs. Istiyak and Others) arising out of case Crime No. 375/06, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Biswan District Sitapur is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur with the direction to dispose of the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code afresh in view of the observation made hereinabove. It is further observed that the application be disposed of after the prosecution examines one more witness of fact, if the prosecution wants to adduce any other witness of fact.