ORDER Heard Shri Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Pathak Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant, though informant has not been impleaded as opposite party in the present case. 2. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of part of the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1st, Bettiah, West Champaran in Sessions Trial No.746 of 2007, whereby the learned trial court has allowed petition filed under Sections 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summoned the petitioners to face trial with accused persons, who were already put on trial. The petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of fardbeyan of one Shri Wakil Dewan, son of deceased. In the F.I.R., the informant had made specific assertion that five F.I.R. named accused persons had done to death his father after intercepting him in a mango orchard. The informant had not claimed to be an eye witness, but he had disclosed that he was informed by the eye witnesses regarding the occurrence. After registering F.I.R., police started investigation. Immediately thereafter, the police recorded statement of witnesses including three witnesses, who had deposed during the trial and implicated the petitioners as accused persons with an allegation that they had also actively participated in the crime. 3. The present petition was hard side by side of Cr. Misc. No.50179 of 2008 in which case diary was received as per earlier judicial order. Accordingly, while haring the present petition, case diary was referred and noticed. On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that all the witnesses had made consistent statement that five F.I.R. named accused persons had committed the occurrence. Number of independent witnesses had also corroborated the same. Three witnesses, who have been examined during the trial, were close relatives of informant and amongst them, some were witnesses to the F.I.R. also. After conducting investigation, police submitted charge sheet against five accused persons. Of course, during investigation, role of petitioners were also examined, but nothing could be brought on record to implicate them and as such they were exonerated. After conducting investigation, police submitted charge sheet against five accused persons. Of course, during investigation, role of petitioners were also examined, but nothing could be brought on record to implicate them and as such they were exonerated. After submission of charge sheet against five accused persons, cognizance order was passed and case was committed to the court of Sessions. During the trial, three witnesses, who are close relatives of the informant, come out with a new case in which they asserted that besides other accused persons, three petitioners had also actively participated in the crime. Thereafter, petition under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the prosecution. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the petition and summoned three petitioners to face trial. 4. Shri Suraj Narayan Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order, has argued that the witnesses contrary to their statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, suddenly in their deposition which were recorded some time in the year 2008 implicated all the three petitioners. The reason for their implication was that there were some dispute in between the deceased and petitioners. It was argued that during investigation, it had come that about two months prior to the occurrence, the deceased was assaulted by petitioner no.2, Sanjay Sah, who is son of petitioner no.1 due to some land dispute pertaining to land of a Mosque. The deceased was Secretary of the Mosque and due to such trivial dispute, he was assaulted by petitioner no.2. Similarly, petitioner no.3 has been implicated due to the reason that the deceased had made certain complaint against Khajanchi Ram, petitioner no.3 regarding execution of contract work by Khajanchi Ram in the capacity of the Mukhiya of the area in construction of a middle school. Besides animosity, no material was collected during investigation to show involvement of the petitioners. In statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of three witnesses, they had categorically corroborated the allegations made in the F.I.R., which was made against five accused persons, who were non else but Pattidar and close relation of deceased and dispute in between the deceased and the accused persons was going on since 1996 regarding some landed property. It was a clear cut case of murder by close relative of the deceased, which material was collected during the investigation, but only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners, at the time of deposition contrary to their own statement the witnesses implicated petitioners also. It was argued that on the basis of materials which have been brought on record, there was no scope to come to a conclusion that materials are sufficient to held them guilty and convict them in the alleged crime. It was submitted that time without number it has been held that while summoning a person to associate him with other accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court must come to a conclusion that on evidence brought on record, there is probability of conviction, only then such power should be exercised. In support of his argument, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to an apex court judgment reported in 2000(3) Supreme Court Cases 262 (Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another), 2000(2) BLJ 477 (Smt. Lalita Devi and another Vs. Nandu Singh and another) and 2012 (1) PLJR 462 (Pramod Tiwary and others Vs. State of Bihar and another). It was further submitted that the learned trial court has mainly persuaded to summon the petitioners on the ground that there were animosity in between the parties. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order. 5. Shri Pathak Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It was submitted that in the F.I.R. itself, the informant had stated that petitioner no.1 was one of the conspirator in murder of his father. Even though there was assertion in the F.I.R., his name was not mentioned in the accused column of the F.I.R. and as such a protest petition was also filed by the informant immediately after registering F.I.R. In this case, F.I.R. was registered on 25.5.2007 and protest was filed on 30.5.2007. It was further submitted that while issuing summon under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only requirement is to see the evidence brought on record during the trial. It was further submitted that while issuing summon under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only requirement is to see the evidence brought on record during the trial. It was submitted that during the trial, three witnesses have made categorical statement indicating direct complicity of the petitioners and as such the learned Sessions Judge has rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including the case diary as indicated above. 7. The court is of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious error in summoning the petitioners merely on deposition made before the trial which was contrary to the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. From the case diary, it is evident that right from the very beginning the witnesses including those witnesses, who have deposed during the trial categorically stated that five accused persons, who were facing trial, had only actively participated in the occurrence. Nothing was asserted during the investigation. It was a case in which five accused persons, who were close relative of deceased in a well planner manner, had committed manner due to land dispute. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court is of the opinion that the learned court below, while summoning the petitioners to face trial with other accused persons, had committed error, which requires interference. Accordingly, the impugned order i.e. order dated 14.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., 1st , Bettiah, West Champaran in S.tr. No.746 of 2007 so far as it relates to summoning petitioners, is hereby set aside and petition stands allowed.