Judgment P.K. Jaiswal, J.;- 1. By this application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., 1973, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 7.4.2010, passed in Criminal Revision No. 794/2007, whereby the leaned revisional Court affirmed the order of dated 20.1.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 904/2005 by which the learned JMFC allowed the application filed under Section 319 of Cr. P.C., taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the police Raoji Bazar, Indore registered the FIR at the instance of one Bahadur Singh Kelwa, who was Reader to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pardesipura, Indore. In the FIR it has been alleged that certain registries of agricultural lands have been executed in the Registrar Office of Indore on the basis of forged documents, showing false names of certain persons, who were shown as Bhumi Swami of those agricultural lands. It was further alleged that one Deepak Sharma S/o. Hemshankar Sharma, was the President of Rochak Grah Nirman Co-operative Society, illegally got registered the lands belonging to the various agriculturists of 12 villages including village Lasydiya Mori on the basis of forged documents. It was after the receipt of enquiry report the Collector Indore directed to get the offences registered against those guilty persons, who had committed these illegal acts. The said FIR was lodged on 27.5.2004. Prior to lodging of FIR an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer Indore. The alleged enquiry report prepared by the Sub Divisional Officer, indicated that the lands belonging to 13 villages were sold by Sanjeev S/o Kailash Chandra, Prakash Chandra, Suresh S/o Sadashiv Rao Kanungo and Shailendra S/o Shambhu Nath Trivedi, in the capacity of Bhumi Swamis. It was alleged that the above-referred persons posed themselves as Bhumi Swami of the above mentioned land, which actually belonged to different agriculturists and were sold to the Rochak Grah Nirman Co-operative Society, Indore. It was further alleged that the above said persons executed 6 registered documents, in favour of Rochak Grah Nirman Co-operative Society, for a consideration of Rs. 24,05,000/-. It was alleged that whenever lands were sold through registered documents, the consideration was paid by the present petitioner. It was also alleged that the present petitioner was the real owner of the said Co-operative Society. 24,05,000/-. It was alleged that whenever lands were sold through registered documents, the consideration was paid by the present petitioner. It was also alleged that the present petitioner was the real owner of the said Co-operative Society. 2. As per enquiry report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Indore, prior to commencement of the Jagirdari Abolition Act, the erstwhile Holkar State, Indore had two families of Jagirdars, popularly known as Bada Rawla and Chhota Rawla. Both these families were in possession of vast agricultural lands in and around the Tehsil of Indore. In the year 1952, a suit for partition was filed by Bada Rawla, demanding partition of agricultural and urban lands in and around the city of Indore. At the time of filing of the suit the family of Bada Rawla was represented by, Rao Nihalkaran where as the family of Chhota Rawla was represented by Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, who was the wife of late Shri Rao Murar Rao, who was the real brother of Rao Nihalkaran and was also known as Chhota Rawla. In the year 1958, a compromise was arrived at between Bada Rawla and Chhota Rawla, and the lands belonging to the family were partitioned and eventually Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, became the sole owner of the lands given in partition. In a decree for partition it was also held by the learned judge that this partition would hold good in cases of those lands also which would be identified in future. Thus, according to this partition, Rao Nihalkaran who was Bada Rawla and Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, who was widow of Chhota Rawla (Rao Murar Rao) held these lands as Bhumi Swami and her name was also entered in the revenue records as Bhumi Swami on most of the lands. 3. Smt. Ramkunwar Bai and her husband Rao Murar Rao has a daughter-Tejkunwar Bai and had no male child. After the death of Smt. Ramkunwar bai in the year 1966, and since Hindu Succession Act, came into force, daughter of Ramkunwar Bai, i.e., Tejkunwar succeeded to her mother's property. The said Tejkunwarbai also did not have any male child and was succeeded by a daughter who was named Kamla Bai. Kamla Bai was married to Shri Sadashiv Rao Kanungo, who has four sons and three daughters. Since Tejkunwar Bai also had no male child, after her death her daughter Kamlabai succeeded to the agricultural lands. The said Tejkunwarbai also did not have any male child and was succeeded by a daughter who was named Kamla Bai. Kamla Bai was married to Shri Sadashiv Rao Kanungo, who has four sons and three daughters. Since Tejkunwar Bai also had no male child, after her death her daughter Kamlabai succeeded to the agricultural lands. The accused Sanjay Kumar Kanungo is the grand son of Kamla Bai and has interest in the property as a legal heir. The accused Suresh Chandra is the son of Kamla Bai and he also has a share in the property as a legal heir and so also Prakash. Kamlabai did not have any male issue, proper care and management of agricultural lands could not be taken. As per Khasra entries, the lands in question belonged to Ramkunwar Bai widow of Rao Murar Rao and accused persons namely Suresh, Prakash Sanjeev Kanungo and Shailendra Trivedi are the legal heirs of Ramkunwar Bai. The legal heirs of Ramkunwar Bai had all the right title and interest in the lands belonging to Ramkunwar Bai. As per Khasra entries which are part of the charge-sheet, the name of Smt. Ramkunwar Bai, as the owner, thus there is not even a prima facie evidence to indicate that the accused had no right to sell these lands to any body. 4. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that there is nothing on record to show even prima facie that petitioner in any manner either cheated or indulged in making so called forged document or paid any consideration to the co-accused persons. 5. The entire charge-sheet does not bear any such document, which would show slightest involvement of the petitioner in preparing the so called forged documents. The challan was filed against four accused persons. The police could not find anything against the present petitioner, so as to place him in the array of accused. During pendency of the matter before Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore an application was filed under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. for impleadment of petitioner and one Deepak Sharma as accused in the matter. All the registry has been executed by M/s. Rochak Grah Nirman Co-operative Society, through its president. During pendency of the matter before Judicial Magistrate First Class Indore an application was filed under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. for impleadment of petitioner and one Deepak Sharma as accused in the matter. All the registry has been executed by M/s. Rochak Grah Nirman Co-operative Society, through its president. The petitioner was neither the president of the said society nor he was officer bearer or Director of the society. The sale deed on behalf of the society was executed by Deepak Sharma. Initially the complaint was filed by one Lokendra Jamindar and on the basis of the said complaint, the matter was investigated. 6. As per final report filed by the petitioner, the sale deed was executed in favour of society by Bhumi Swami. Sanjeev S/o. Kailash Chandra, Prakash Chandra, Suresh S/o. Sadashiv Rao Kanungo and Shailendra S/o. Shambhu Nath Trivedi, shows themselves as Bhumi Swami and sold the land by executing the sale deed in favour of the society. There is no document nor any material to prove that Khasra Panchshil and other revenue record are prepared by the petitioner. The Sub Registrar at the time of executing the sale deed never disputed the document filed by the land owners. 7. As per record Mahindra Jain, owner of M/s. Fancy Construction Company, there is nothing on record to prove he is directly or indirectly involved in the business of the society. The investigating agency also filed their reply before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 20.11.2006 that petitioner is not accused and, therefore, no cognizance was taken against him. After a period of three years, an application was filed for arraying the petitioner as an accused. Along with the petition no new document has been filed to prove that there is material against the present petitioner. 8. The primary object under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. is that the whole case against all the accused should be tried and disposed of not only expeditiously, but also simultaneously. The power under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. is an extraordinary power which is required to be exercised very sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against persons against whom action has not been taken. Before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, nature of evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of this extraordinary power. P.C. is an extraordinary power which is required to be exercised very sparingly and if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against persons against whom action has not been taken. Before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, nature of evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of this extraordinary power. Materials brought before Court must also be such which would satisfy that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised. A higher standard for purpose of forming opinion to summon person as additional accused is required to satisfy the ingredients thereof. An order under Section 319, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witness seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to satisfy the ingredients of Section 319. Mere ipse dixit would not serve purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the Courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. Mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. 9. My attention, however, has been drawn to the copy of compromise arrived at between Ramnihal Kalan and Smt. Ramkunwarbai in Civil Suit No. 88/52, judgment dated 27th October, 1959 passed in Civil Suit No. 88/52, order dated 31.3.1967 in Civil Revision No. 593/65 and various Annual Revenue records. It is submitted that 6 registered document were executed by the society through owners of the land. The enquiry report of the SDO is not supported by any document and since the FIR has been lodged from the Office of SDO the alleged offence has been registered against other co-accused persons and later on the other co-accused persons in their statements made allegations against the petitioner and, therefore, the learned trial Court allowed the application filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C. 10. He also submitted that the power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances where the invocation of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice. P.C. 10. He also submitted that the power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is to be invoked, not as a matter of course, but in circumstances where the invocation of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice. In the instant case, the material available evidence collected by the prosecution as far as the petitioner is concerned, it is difficult to hold with any amount of certainty that he same would in all probability secure a conviction against the petitioner. In the present case, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner, it would not be proper to subject the petitioner to trial by invoking provisions of Section 319 Cr. P.C. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Kailash v/s State of Rajasthan ( AIR 2008 SC 1564 ) has held that under the provisions of Section 319 Cr. P.C. the trial Court was required to consider the evidence on record independently that whether there was any material in the evidence not only to connect the petitioner but where it was sufficient to justify the words 'it appears' that such person has committed the crime. Words "it appears" in Section 319 are not to be read lightly. The key words in Section 319 are 'it appears from the evidence"............ 'any person'......... "has committed any offence". It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr. P.C. would be used by the Court. This is apart from the fact that such person against whom such discretion is used, should be a person who could be tried together with the accused against whom the trial is already going on. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again, declared that the discretion under Section 319 Cr. P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly and caution and only when the court concerned is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the person concerned has committed an offence. The words 'it appears' are not to be read lightly. This power has to be essentially exercised only on the basis of the evidence. It could, therefore, be used only after legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the person concerned has committed an offence. The words 'it appears' are not to be read lightly. In that the Court would have to be circumspect while exercising this power and would have to apply the caution which the language of the section demands. 11. In the present case also the conclusion of the Judicial Magistrate First Class was irrelevant insofar as the cognizance of the petitioner is concerned that by itself was no reason to try him with the aid of Section 319 Cr. P.C. 12. The discretionary jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr. P.C. can be exercised only after the legal evidence comes on record and from that evidence it appears that the person concerned has committed an offence. The Court has consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. I am, therefore, is of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. I accordingly, allow this application.