JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2010, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, whereby the learned Judge has issued process against the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.07.2009, the complainant, Sheru Khan, had submitted a written report before the Police Station Phalsund, wherein he claimed that in the night of 16.07.2009, while he and his family members were sleeping in his house, some people came in a Scorpio Jeep. These persons were armed with deadly weapons. These persons, included the present petitioners, not only looted his house, but also kidnapped his daughter-in-law, Smt. Naziro Khan. 2. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.30/2009 for offences under Sections 143, 457, 380, 354, 323, 365, 363 IPC. After a thorough investigation, while the police submitted the charge-sheet against Safi Khan, it did not submit the charge-sheet against the present petitioners. However, during the course of trial, evidence started trickling in about the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged crime. Therefore, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for issuance of process against the present petitioner. Vide order dated 23.02.2010, the learned Judge issued the process and took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 363 and 366A IPC and issued bailable warrants against them. 3. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. L.D. Khatri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the evidence was already available when the investigation was carried out. Yet, still the police did not file any charge-sheet against the present petitioners. A similar set of evidence has been recorded by the trial court. Thus, there is no reason for exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the trial court. 4. On the other hand, Mrs. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Dhirendra Singh, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, have strenuously contended that merely because a charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioners, it would not pre-empt the court from exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After all, the scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to array those persons who have been left out as accused persons by the police, and in case evidence starts to trickle in against them. Relying on the case of Suman v. State of Rajasthan, [ (2010) 1 SCC 250 ] , the learned counsel has contended that in case a prima facie case is made out against such persons who have not been charge-sheeted by the police, then the trial court is justified in invoking its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in issuing the process against them. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra as it has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suman (Supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as under : 6. A reading of the plain language of Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. There is nothing in the language of Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the FIR or complaint but against whom charge-sheet is not filed by the police, cannot be proceeded against even though in the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offence the court finds that such person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused. The process issued against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her. A person who is named in the FIR or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. If from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. In the present case, a large number of witnesses, namely Sheru Khan, Smt. Dali, Imman Khan, Gani Khan and Smt. Naziro, have clearly stated that the present petitioners were involved in the commission of the crime under Sections 363, 366A IPC. Since prima facie the case was made out on the basis of their testimonies, the learned Judge was certainly justified in invoking its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******