JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 11.03.2008, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Nurpur wherein charges framed against the petitioner had been questioned. 2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the facts of the case as necessary for the adjudication of this case are that the complainant PW-1, lodged a complaint in police station that her husband had been abducted by some persons. After the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet wherein the petitioner was not arraigned as an accused. However, in a complaint made before the learned trial Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.) by the prosecution, the learned trial Court on 19.12.2002, passed an order for addition of the accused in the ongoing trial. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, which order has been assailed before this court. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that the learned Courts below had not at all cared to take into consideration the scope of Section 319 Cr. P.C. which reads as follows:- "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 witnesses re-heard. (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 witnesses re-heard. (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." 4. I have heard Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the powers under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to arraign an accused could have only been invoked if the Courts were satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted. 6. The object, nature and scope of Section 319 Cr. P.C. does not remain in the realm of guesswork in view of the Constitutional Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and other, (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court formulated five questions for determination and then answered them in the following manner:- "Questions – (i) and (iii) (i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr PC can be exercised? (iii) Whether the word evidence used in Section 319(1) Cr PC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word evidence is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? Answer – (i) and (iii) 117.1 – In Dharam Pal Case 7, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of the investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr PC and the Sessions Judge need not wait till evidence under Section 319 Cr PC becomes available for summoning an additional accused. 117.2 – Section 319 Cr PC significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) inquiry (2) trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr PC and under Section 398 Cr PC are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr PC. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr PC and under Section 398 Cr PC are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr PC. Materials coming before the court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr PC and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. 117.3 – In view of the above position the word evidence in Section 319 Cr PC has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. Question (ii) – Whether the word evidence used in Section 319(1) Cr PC could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? Answer (ii) – 117.4. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Cr PC a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Cr PC the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. Question (iv) – What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr PC to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr PC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? Answer (iv) – 117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr PC the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr PC would be the same as for framing a charge*. Answer (iv) – 117.5. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr PC the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr PC would be the same as for framing a charge*. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Question (v) – Does the power under Section 319 Cr PC extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged? Answer (v) – 117.6. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr PC provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, insofar as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Cr PC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh." 6. The question raised in the petition has been squarely answered while answering question number (iv), supra. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even in case a person is not named in the FIR or a person named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted even then he can be summoned under Section 319 Cr. P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. 7. P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. 7. The learned Revisional Court has rightly held that the framing of charge by the learned trial court is only a step forward to proceed with the criminal proceedings and therefore, unless the order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the petitioner was arraigned as an accused is set aside, the framing of charges against the revisionist cannot be said to be illegal. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned courts below. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.