JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Sukhwinder Singh @ Rinku and Harpreet Kaur, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts of the case as mentioned in the revision petition are that FIR No.25 dated 03.03.2013 was registered under Sections 304-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Sadar, Nabha. Challan was presented against Darshan Singh (Father-in-law), Surinder Pal Singh @ Shinderpal Singh (Husband), Bhinder Kaur (Mother-in-law). Sukhwinder Singh @ Rinku and Harpreet Kaur were found innocent in the investigation and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Subsequently, on recording statement of complainant-Nachattar Singh while appearing as PW1 before the Court mentioned that said two persons were also involved in commission of offence. Thereafter, an application was moved under Section 319 of the Code for summoning Sukhwinder Singh @ Rinku and Harpreet Kaur. Said application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 10.07.2014. 3. Now the present revision petition has been filed to challenge order dated 10.07.2014 by raising various grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has wrongly been dismissed without taking into consideration the statement of complainant and role played by the persons sought to be summoned. The daughter of petitioner was murdered by all the accused and then she was thrown in the Canal making it look like a suicide. Learned counsel also submits that specific role of said persons sought to be summoned was mentioned in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded before the Police and same has been mentioned in the statement of complainant recorded before the trial Court. Initially, they were declared innocent in the investigation inspite of their active participation. Subsequently, application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused impugned order and other documents available on the file including statement of complainant-Nachattar Singh. 6. Admittedly, both the persons sought to be summoned were found innocent in the investigation and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. 5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused impugned order and other documents available on the file including statement of complainant-Nachattar Singh. 6. Admittedly, both the persons sought to be summoned were found innocent in the investigation and they were kept in column No.2 of the challan. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning these two persons to face trial along with other accused, who are already facing trial. 7. For facilitation, Section 319 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under: - “319.Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses reheard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 8. Undoubtedly, the Court has power to summon any person to face trial along with other accused, who are already facing trial, in case, said person sought to be summoned is also involved in commission of the offence. On perusal of contents of FIR, simply it appears that said two persons were also present and they were involved, which was considered in the investigation and they were found to be innocent. The persons sought to be summoned are brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani). Other accused i.e., husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law are already facing trial. On perusal of contents of FIR, simply it appears that said two persons were also present and they were involved, which was considered in the investigation and they were found to be innocent. The persons sought to be summoned are brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani). Other accused i.e., husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law are already facing trial. The only argument, which has been raised for summoning said persons and to challenge impugned order is that the said persons were also involved and it was mentioned in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as their roles have been specified in the statement of complainant recorded before the trial Court. 9. In the statement of PW1-Nachattar Singh, simply it has been mentioned that all the accused including the persons sought to be summoned were also harassing deceased-Paramjit Kaur for not bringing sufficient dowry and they actively participated in the occurrence along with other accused. No specific overt act has been attributed to them. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala has dismissed the application by passing the impugned order. 10. Admittedly, power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power to be exercised very sparingly and only if compelling circumstances and reasons are there for taking cognizance against other persons who are sought to be summoned. The said power is to be exercised judiciously, only in case some fresh evidence is there which has come into light during the course of inquiry or trial of the offence and the Court is satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with the other accused. 11. In Michael Macahdo and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75, the Apex Court has observed that the Court is to satisfy from the evidence that the person seeks to be summoned has committed an offence. The relevant observation reads as under: - “11. 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. 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 be tried along with the already arraigned accused.” 12. Similar view has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1979 SC 339 , which is reproduced as under: - “A plain reading of Sec. 319(1), which occurs in Chapter XXIV dealing with general provisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to all the Courts including a Sessions Court and as such a Sessions Court will have the power to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused. ‘It was further observed in paragraph 9 that as regards the contention that the phrase ‘any person not being the accused’ occurred in Sec. 319 excludes from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Sec.169 of the Code and has been shown in Column No.2 of the charge sheet, the contention has merely to be stated to be rejected. The said expression clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like Sec.319 (1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offense comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.” 13. In another judgment Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983 (1) SCC 2, the Apex Court has observed as under: - “In these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, we would hasten to add that this is really an un-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. More than this we would not like to say anything further at this stage. We leave the entire matter to the discretion of the court concerned so that it may act according to law. We would, however, make it plain that the mere fact that the proceedings have been quashed against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 will not prevent the court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against them has been made out on the additional evidence led before it.’ And xxx xxx xxx. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exists for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier.” 14. In the present case also, neither any fresh evidence has come in the statement of complainant nor any compelling reasons are there to summon said two persons as the statement of complainant is merely a reiteration of earlier statement made before the Police authorities and in the investigation, the same has been considered and these persons were found to be innocent. 15. In view of the facts as mentioned above and the law position as discussed above, the impugned order is well reasoned, based on facts and circumstances of the case and does not require any interference keeping in view the finding recorded therein. 16. Accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------