JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- Hans Raj and sixteen others, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 05.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout summoning them to face trial for an offence punishable under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 IPC and order dated 17.04.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the revision petition against the order dated 05.04.2012 has been dismissed illegally and erroneously. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police after due investigation had sent three persons to stand trial and had put their names in column no.2 of the challan. According to him, the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malout did not record its satisfaction on the evidence coming before it that the said evidence was sufficient for conviction of the petitioners. According to him, similar error has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 17.04.2013. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that in all about 40 persons were accused in this case, out of whom some were unidentified persons and some were named. He has further submitted that the police after due investigation had found a case against three persons only and had placed the names of others in column no.2 of the challan. According to him, the statement, which was before the police was repeated by the witnesses at the trial and that alone could not be sufficient to find a case for summoning the petitioners as accused. He has further submitted that only ten injuries were there on the persons of the two injured and the persons arrayed as accused are 17 in number. According to him, this circumstance also goes against the credibility of the prosecution case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before me a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarabjit Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 388 where it has been held that a person should not be summoned to face trial if prima-facie case was made out against him. It is further laid down that a person should be summoned only when the court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. 5. It is further laid down that a person should be summoned only when the court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. 5. Besides the fact that Murti, the complainant in her statement before the police named the petitioners and described their role, Rinku had also stated about the petitioners and their role in the occurrence. They have appeared as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively at the trial and have made statements on oath against these persons. The only circumstance, which is said to be going against the complainant is that ten injuries were there on the complainant and the injured and the persons-accused in the FIR are 17 in number. It is not necessary that every person who join the attack must use his weapon. It will be sufficient to see that they entered the area of the accused showing that they shared intention with the persons who caused injuries. 6. Murti and Rinku, PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated about the petitioners and their role. The police could not give any plausible reason for exonerating the petitioners. The Magistrate though used the expression “prima-facie offence” but the same seems to have been used in a casual manner. The said order has already been tested by learned Revisional Court and the Revisional Court has held that the evidence clearly shows there to be a clear prospect of conviction of the petitioners on the evidence coming on the record. 7. In the given circumstances, I do not find any irregularity much less illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, I find no merit in the petition and dismiss the same. ---------0.B.S.0------------