JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2009, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 115/2008, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant -petitioner lodged a report, bearing F.I.R. No. 321/2008, at Police Station Udyog Nagar with an allegation against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 regarding commission of offence under Section 366 read with Section 376 I.P.C. After investigation, the Police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 376 and 366 I.P.C. only against accused Bhim Singh and left the respondents from the array of the accused. During the course of trial, after recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 376 read with Section 366 I.P.C. Previously, vide order dated 12.6.2009, the learned trial Court has held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. will be decided at the time of final decision of the case. Against that order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the revision petition and ordered that the learned trial Court should decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. first. Thereafter, the learned trail Court after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 17.8.2009 rejected the application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a strong prima facie case has been made out against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and they should be tried accordingly. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned order is considered one and after consideration of the fact and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to be interfered. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. This is a settled position of law that if a prima facie case is made out against a person, he can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. This is a settled position of law that if a prima facie case is made out against a person, he can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial. But at the same time, the Court will see that there is reasonable prospect of the case ending in conviction against the newly brought accused and if it is not the position, the Court would not summon the accused. Here when the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not named in the F.I.R., evidence of prosecutrix is suffered from material contradictions as evident from the impugned order. The learned trial Court had rightly arrived at a conclusion that no prima facie case is made out against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Hence, looking to the factual matrix of the case, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Thus, the misc. petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******