JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: (Oral) - The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.02.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned SDJM, Mahendergarh, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial under Sections 498-A/406/506/34 IPC along with the accused already facing trial. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the FIR in question was registered on the complaint of Manju/respondent No.2 against her husband Rajesh on the allegations that at the time of the marriage of the complainant with Rajesh her father had spent beyond his capacity on dowry, eatables, household articles and cash. It is further alleged that after the marriage Kamla Devi mother-in-law of the complainant, Ompati wife of Parmanand, aunt-in-law of the complainant, started taunting the complainant that her father had given nothing for them. As per the allegations in the FIR, she was forced to bring motorcycle, cash and gold articles as and when the complainant goes to her parental home, otherwise she was threatened to be killed. Despite the request of the complainant that her father is a poor man, her in-laws reiterated their demand. After this the brother of the complainant Rakesh took the complainant to her parental home. The police investigated the case and challan was presented against Rajesh/husband of the complainant only and the petitioners were given clean chit. However, after the statement of the complainant in the Court against the petitioners, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioners have been summoned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the order passed by the learned Courts below is discriminatory and arbitrary because no reason has been given as to why the allegations against the petitioners were treated true and allegations against Parmanand as an afterthought. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that no specific allegation was made against the petitioners nor was any suspicion raised against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Rajesh on 02.03.2006. From the beginning complainant was not happy with the marriage because she disclosed to Rajesh that she wished to marry someone else but under parental pressure she had to marry Rajesh. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Rajesh on 02.03.2006. From the beginning complainant was not happy with the marriage because she disclosed to Rajesh that she wished to marry someone else but under parental pressure she had to marry Rajesh. On 20.03.2006, complainant suddenly went to her parental house and in concern to that, husband of the complainant, obtained a search warrant under Section 97/98 Cr.P.C. issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Charkhi Dadri on 04.07.2006 and while appearing before the Court, she stated that does not want to reside with her husband. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by counsel for the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the instant case, although petitioners were specifically named in the First Information Report but no challan was presented against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Michael Machando & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr. Reported in (2000) (3) SCC 262 to contend that if upon scanning of evidence it is found that ultimate conviction is not possible, then trial court can refuse to exercise its discretionary power for adding any accused and can reject application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are different from the fact of the present case because the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents held that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances when the exercise of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice but at the same time, it has been held that evidence adduced against such persons must be substantiated before summoning them for trial. In the cited case there was no direct evidence of complicity of the alleged accused in the incident but in the instant case from the statements of complainant, it is clear that all the three respondents have been categorically named in the statement before the court as well as their names were mentioned in the supplementary statement before the police authorities. 7. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lok Ram vs. Nihal Singh (2006) 3 SCC (Crl.) 532 also held that the word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in court. The trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge sheet or the case diary. Such material contained in the charge sheet or the case diary does not constitute evidence. Of course, an accused who has been discharged stands on a different footing. Such power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Indisputably, it is an extra ordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. 8. In my opinion, at the time of deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if material evidence is on record for adding the accused then the learned trial court is not required to scan the entire evidence as if it is adjudicating the matter finally. It appears from the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 that learned trial court has decided the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as if the learned trial court was deciding this case after completion of the trial, therefore, in my view, it is a fit case in which the order impugned passed by the Courts below summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 06.02.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, and order dated 18.10.2010 passed by learned SDJM, Mahendergarh are quashed and case is remanded to the trial Court. The trial court is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------