JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the revisionists. 2. Mr. R.K. Shah, Deputy Advocate General (Criminal) for the State/respondent no.1. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the Sessions Trial No.8 of 2011 was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, wherein Uttam Singh, the husband of deceased, was being tried for the offence of Section 306 IPC. The said Uttam Singh entered into wedlock with the deceased Smt. Kalma/Kamla almost nine years before her death. She could not conceive and produce a child in all along 8-9 years of her matrimonial life. So, the allegations were that she was consistently taunted at the hands of these revisionists, who are none other but her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law. As a result of such traumatization, she committed suicide. The first information report was lodged by Vishal Singh, father of deceased, against her husband and all the revisionists. Investigation culminated into the submission of chargesheet only against the husband while the afore-named petitioners were absolved by the Police. 4. After levelling of Charge, PW1 Vishal Singh and PW2 Devendra Singh (relative of PW1) were examined and they have only levelled the bald allegations against these revisionists. Relying on those allegations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge issued the summons u/s 319 Cr.P.C. asking the revisionists to surrender in the Court. 5. The law is very clear on the subject which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another 2009(2) UC 1105. It has been held that before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, in that situation, the nature of evidence should be such which could make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The evidence should be sufficient and the cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to satisfy the ingredients of provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 6. Now, looking to the impugned order passed by the Trial Judge, it is clear that only the statements of PW1 and PW2 have been made pre-dominatingly the basis for exercising the powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the revisionists. I find that the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge are not sufficient to permit the revisionists to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial. I find that the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge are not sufficient to permit the revisionists to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial. 7. Thus, in view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 29.5.2012 passed by the court below in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2011, asking the revisionists to put their appearance and to face trial, is hereby quashed.