JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioners have impugned the order passed by Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby he has summoned the petitioners to face prosecution along with other accused for offences under Sections 302/304-B/406/498-A/120-B IPC. The case has been registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala, under these offences. During the investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and shown in column No.2 and the challan has been submitted before the Court. 2. During the trial, complainant-Gurtej Singh was examined as PW-1. This witness has given eye-witness account, which has even been reproduced in the impugned order. On the basis of this evidence, the prosecution moved an application to summon the present petitioners as additional accused. 3. The application so filed was opposed by the defence. The trial Court, thereafter, noticed the evidence that has been led through PW-1. After placing reliance on the case of Ram Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. And another, [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 983] : 2009(3) Criminal Court Cases 627, the Court has observed that prima facie case under Sections 302/498-A/406 and 120-B IPC is made out against the petitioners Karamjit Singh, S/o Sukhpal Singh alias Jagpal Singh and his wife Sukhwinder Kaur alias Sukhi. 4. The evidence, which has been relied upon to summon the petitioners as additional accused, would show that this witness along with his maternal uncle and parents had gone to the bedroom of his sister(deceased Mandeep Kaur) at 3/4 P.M. on 6.11.2010. PW-1 found that Kulbir Singh had tied the throat/neck of his sister with ‘chunni’ (scarf). Baljit Kaur-accused had caught hold her feet and Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhi, sister of accused Kulbir singh had caught the deceased from arms. Karamjit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were standing nearby and they were instigating the remaining accused that Mandeep Kaur failed to fulfill their demand and they should kill her. The witness, thereafter, raised alarm and the accused persons ran away from the scene. 5. Without making any comment on the nature of evidence given by this witness, the Court has summoned the petitioners as additional accused only by noticing that prima facie case is made out against these additional accused as well. 6. The requirement of summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C has now been almost fully settled through various authoritative judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex court. 6. The requirement of summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C has now been almost fully settled through various authoritative judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex court. The Courts are not only required to see that a prima facie case exists. Rather the requirement is a little more than prima facie may be less than ultimate proof, which the Court has finally to look for. This test may emerge from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 75, where it was observed as under:- “The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence,about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused.” 7. In this very judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion and discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. Supreme Court went on to observe that it is not that a Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. It is said that a judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. In the case of Michael Machado’s case (supra) a detailed reference was made to the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. In the case of Michael Machado’s case (supra) a detailed reference was made to the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. 1983 (1) RCR (Crl.) 73 by the Court to observe and to strike a note of caution by saying that this is really an extraordinary power, which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. It would be noticeable that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado’s case (supra) proceeded to hold that unless the court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospects of the case as against newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. 8. It appears that the trial Court has not kept in view the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while summoning the petitioners as additional accused. It certainly would be more than the prima facie case, which the Court has to see while adding as an additional accused. Since the parameters laid down were not fully kept in view or are not indicated in the order while summoning the petitioners as additional accused, it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the trial Court to reconsider the issue in the light of law laid down and settled by various judgments. Any view expressed here is not on merits or on the quality of the evidence. The trial Court would be at liberty to decide and take any view in accordance with law. 9. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------