Naheed Ara Moonis, J.;— Heard Shri Apul Misra, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri V. S. Parmar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicants invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the order dated 31.5.2012, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Ex-Cadre, Court No.2, Mainpuri in Session Trial No.46 of 2008, whereby the applicants have been summoned under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to face the trial on the application moved by the opposite party no.2, Krishna Kumar Dubey alias Munna Devariya under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 19.8.2007 at about 5 p.m. against the named accused persons, who have assaulted the complainant's wife and son with fisticuffs, thereafter co-accused Bablu, Vipin Dixit and Umesh Chandra(the applicants) caught hold the son of the complainant and exhorted the co-accused Adesh Kumar for firing, on this the said co-accused Adesh Kumar had fired at him, hitting him at his right ear, and thereafter they escaped from the spot. The incident was witnessed by the complainant, his wife Shashi and the wife of the deceased Laxmi Devi. The complainant had taken his son to the hospital, where he was referred to Mainpuri, while in the way his son succumbed to injuries. He went to police station along with the dead body of his son, and the first information report was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 504 IPC at Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri as case crime no.638 of 2007 against named accused persons including the applicants. During investigation the charge sheet was only submitted against the co-accused Adesh Kumar, who is facing trial as Session Trial No.46 of 2008. During trial the complainant's statement was recorded, thereafter an application was moved by him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicants and co-accused Smt. Brijesh, Smt. Sadhna Pandey and Smt. Veena Devi. 4. During investigation the charge sheet was only submitted against the co-accused Adesh Kumar, who is facing trial as Session Trial No.46 of 2008. During trial the complainant's statement was recorded, thereafter an application was moved by him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicants and co-accused Smt. Brijesh, Smt. Sadhna Pandey and Smt. Veena Devi. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that, during trial the statement of Krishna Kumar Dubey alias Munna Devariya, who is the complainant, was recorded as P.W.1 and of his wife, Shashi was recorded as P.W.2, thereafter an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicants on the ground that the complainant has lodged the first information report against all the accused persons, but the investigating officer has conducted the investigation in perfunctory manner and dropped the names of all the other accused persons. The court below deferred to pass any order on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., by holding that it would be considered after examination of other witnesses namely Smt. Shashi wife of Bablu and Smt. Laxmi, wife of Sanju alias Sanjeev Kumar. This order was passed on 2.7.2009, fixing 16.7.2009. The complainant challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court by moving a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.16935 of 2009, whereby this Court vide order dated 28.7.2009, rejected the application having found no illegality in the order passed by the court below. Thereafter the statements of Smt. Shashi, wife of Bablu, Smt. Laxmi Devi, wife of Sanju alias Sanjeev Kumar(deceased) were recorded. The trial court examined Smt. Shashi and Smt. Laxmi Devi as a court witness nos.1 and 2 and one Ram Aadhar as a court witness no.3. Thereafter the court below on the basis of their statements did not find to prosecute the proposed accused persons, hence rejected the application of the opposite party no.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 28.4.2010, which was again challenged by the opposite party no.2 by filing a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24062 of 2010, which too was rejected by the another Bench of this Court on 30.7.2010. The said order passed by the court below became final as it was not challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.24062 of 2010, which too was rejected by the another Bench of this Court on 30.7.2010. The said order passed by the court below became final as it was not challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The opposite party no.2 having failed in his attempt to summon the other accused persons who have not been charge sheeted by the police for want of evidence against them, moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to summon Km. Shilpi and Km. Shivi as a material witness of the incident. The said application was allowed by the court below vide its order dated 6.8.2011, thereafter the statement of Km. Shilpi was recorded as C.W.3. The complainant again moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 17.1.2012 after the evidence of Km. Shilpi was recorded as C.W.3, and the court below has illegally allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoning the applicants to face the trial, when on earlier two occasions this Court did not allow the application of the opposite party no.2 moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is no iota of evidence against the applicants, and merely on the basis of the evidence recorded earlier, which has been reiterated by the court witness Km. Shilpi, the applicants have been summoned by the court below. Hence, the order passed by the court below suffers from manifest error of law and liable to be quashed. The evidence adduced is not of such a nature that there is any likelihood that the applicants would be convicted. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit, wherein annexing the statements of the complainant and his wife as P.W.1 and P.W.2, who have categorically stated about the involvement of the applicants along with other accused persons, and has pointed out that earlier the application was rejected under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Smt. Shashi and Smt. Laxmi Devi, wife of deceased were summoned as court witnesses, who have not supported the prosecution story as Smt. Shashi Dubey is the real sister of the co-accused Adesh Kumar. The father and brother of Smt. Laxmi Devi, the wife of the deceased, had taken a forcible possession over the house of the complainant and due to this reason a case was also registered against Laxmi Devi and other persons on 6.4.2008 under Sections 454, 380, 448 IPC. After the death of the complainant's son he came to reside at Allahabad along with his grand children Km. Shilpi and Km. Shivi along with his wife and therefore the wife of the deceased and wife of co-accused had not supported the prosecution case though they were eye witness of the incident. Thereafter the application was moved by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning both the children Km. Shilpi and Km. Shivi who were present at the time of the incident. Hence, the order was passed on 6.8.2011 by the trial court allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon Km. Shilpi and Km. Shivi for their examination before the court as court witnesses. The co-accused Adesh Kumar, who was facing trial had challenged this order before this Court by moving a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.29724 of 2011 and the another Bench of this Court had rejected the said application vide order dated 26.9.2011, holding therein that there is no infirmity in the order dated 6.8.2011 which may call any interference, therefore, the order passed by the court below on the basis of statement of Km. Shilpi as court witness, allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., hence does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The purpose of the court is to find out the truth of the case by examining the material witnesses. The statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, wherein they have categorically stated about the presence of two minor daughters of their elder son who had also witnessed the occurrence, cannot be said that they have been examined purposely to make out the case against the applicants who have not been charge sheeted by the police. The trial court has passed the order which is absolutely just and proper. In the order under challenged the court below has not find the complicity of the other accused persons namely, Sadhana Pandey, Veena Devi and Smt. Brijesha to summon them, hence passed the order summoning the applicants only, therefore, the prosecution of the applicants on the basis of evidence of Km. In the order under challenged the court below has not find the complicity of the other accused persons namely, Sadhana Pandey, Veena Devi and Smt. Brijesha to summon them, hence passed the order summoning the applicants only, therefore, the prosecution of the applicants on the basis of evidence of Km. Shilpi may not be interfered. The trial court will consider each and every aspect of the case in its proper prospective at the appropriate stage, therefore, the instant petition lacks merit and liable to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The court below has passed the order exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoning the applicants to face the trial, who had arrived at the conclusion on the basis of evidence recorded before the court as court witness Km. Shilpi, whose presence was also corroborated by the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Merely earlier the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected, it cannot be said that there is a bar for moving another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Moreover the complainant had moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Km. Shilpi and Km. Shivi as court witnesses, which was allowed by the court below and the said order was also affirmed by this Court. Hence, the statement of Km. Shilpi as court witness cannot be said to have been procured to implicate the applicants in the offence. It is the duty of the trial judge to arrive at truth by all lawful means. Thus, the court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence including the involvement of the applicants in the commission of offence. Section 319 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the court can exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. suo motu or an application by someone, and the power to proceed against any persons not being the accused before the court, can be prosecuted if there appears during inquiry or trial sufficient evidence including the involvement in the offence. Section 319 Cr.P.C. specifically provides that the court can exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. suo motu or an application by someone, and the power to proceed against any persons not being the accused before the court, can be prosecuted if there appears during inquiry or trial sufficient evidence including the involvement in the offence. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant was allowed by the trial court, and the approach of the court below was to collect all such evidence, and if the court comes to the conclusion that there are some other persons who can deposed about the matter, the court below has rightly exercised its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., allowing to summon the children as court witnesses, and the application was allowed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was confirmed by this Court, therefore, the trial court has committed no error in examining the witnesses as court witnesses and arriving to the conclusion that prima facie involvement of the applicants in the commission of offence along with the co-accused, who is already facing trial in the present case. 7. The Apex court in the case of Sarojben Ashwin Kumar Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2011 (74) ACC 951 has diluted the principles laid down in Michael Machado and another Vs. C.B.I. and another 2000 (4) ACC 795 (SC) and reviewed the case law in respect of summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has laid down parameters in this regard. In para 16 their Lordships of the Apex Court has held as under :- "16. The legal position that can be culled out from the material provisions of Section 319 of the Code and the decided cases of this court is this:- (i) The Court can exercise the power conferred on it under Section 319 of the Code suo-motu or on an application by someone. (ii) The power conferred under Section 319 (1) applies to all Courts including the Sessions Court. (iii) The phrase "any person not being the accused" occurring in section 319 does not exclude from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. (ii) The power conferred under Section 319 (1) applies to all Courts including the Sessions Court. (iii) The phrase "any person not being the accused" occurring in section 319 does not exclude from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In other words, the said expression covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and would include person or persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Court. (iv) The power to proceed against any person, not being the accused before the Court, must be exercised only where there appears during inquiry or trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence as an accused and not otherwise. The word 'evidence' in Section 319 contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in Court in the inquiry or trial. The Court cannot add persons as accused on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary but must be based on the evidence adduced before it. In other words, the Court must be satisfied that a case for addition of persons as accused, not being the accused before it has been made out on the additional evidence let in before it. (v) The power conferred upon the Court's although discretionary but is not to be exercised in a routine manner. In a sense, it is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly and only if evidence has come on record which sufficiently establishes that the other person has committed an offence. A mere doubt about involvement of the other person on the basis of the evidence let in before the Court is not enough. The Court must also be satisfied that circumstances justify and warrant that other person be tried with the already arraigned accused. (vi) The Court while exercising its power under Section 319 of the Code must keep in view full conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. (vi) The Court while exercising its power under Section 319 of the Code must keep in view full conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. (vii) Regard must also be had by the Court to the constraints imposed in Section 319 (4) that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh from the beginning of the trial. (viii) The court must, therefore, appropriately consider the above aspects and then exercise its judicial discretion." 8. In view of the above prolix discussions rendered in Sarojben (supra) the law has travelled further and the theory of probability in regard to summoning of an accused that there are chances of conviction stands diluted and the requirement has been found to be that there must be satisfactory and prima facie evidence to summon the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 9. Therefore, in these circumstances, the proceeding initiated against the applicants cannot be quashed, even otherwise, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to quash the proceeding only, if no offence is made out, whereas in the instant case, prima facie involvement of the applicants is there, and as such the order passed by the court below, summoning the applicants, suffers from no illegality. Therefore, the instant petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage during trial. 11. However, the applicants are directed to appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail within a period of thirty days from the date of the certified copy of this order, then their prayer for bail shall be considered keeping in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amarawati & another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and is also approved by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (2) Crimes 4 (S.C.) after hearing the Public Prosecutor, uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. 12. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below to proceed with the case in accordance with law. _____________