Shri Narayan Shukla, J.;- Heard Dr.Salik Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the summoning order dated 8th of April, 2011, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.340 of 2010, arising out of case Crime No.57 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sandila, district Hardoi, on the basis of statement of witnesses P.W.1 Arvind Kumar Shukla and P.W.-2 Natthu lal Shukla. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that after registration of the First Information Report the case was investigated. After investigation, since no offence was found to have been committed by the petitioner, his name was excluded from the charge sheet. However, subsequently on the basis of statement of the aforesaid witnesses, recorded during the course of chief examination, the learned Sessions Judge being satisfied that the petitioner has also committed offence, as reported, he, in exercise of power provided under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has summoned the petitioner for trial. 4. Dealing with the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another versus State of Punjab and another, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 46 , has held that dealing with the case under Sections 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the different standards are required to be applied. Only the, prima facie, satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate about the commission of offence is not sufficient, rather the case should be dealt with the higher standard for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure carefully, that may be the material and evidence available on record either in the case diary or somewhere else to constitute the evidence against the person for commission of offence. This court has also dealt with this question in the case of Kulwant Singh versus State of U.P.and another, Criminal Misc. Case No.1003 of 2011 and has observed that the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction in specific words as to what standard he has adopted to satisfy himself for summoning the person. 5. This court has also dealt with this question in the case of Kulwant Singh versus State of U.P.and another, Criminal Misc. Case No.1003 of 2011 and has observed that the learned Magistrate has to record his satisfaction in specific words as to what standard he has adopted to satisfy himself for summoning the person. 5. In the present case, I find that without recording any substantial satisfaction, merely on the basis of statement of witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has proceeded to summon the petitioner, therefore, I am of the view that the order impugned dated 8th of April, 2011, warrants interference by this court and I hereby quash the same with the direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made here-in-above. 6. In the aforesaid terms the petition is disposed of finally.