ORDER 1. The Revision Petitioners are the accused and they have filed this Criminal Revision to set aside the order dated 02.05.2012 passed in C.M.P. No. 43 of 2012 in C.C. No. 5972 of 2006 by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking to implead the petitioners as proposed accused. 2. The second respondent is the defacto-complainant and she has lodged a complaint before the first respondent on the allegations that on 26.09.2004, at 10.00 a.m. when the defacto complainant returned to her house, her husband was not available and he is away from the house. At that time, the first accused was unloading bricks and sand and he was putting bricks to close the window of the defacto complainant’s house which is abutting to the house of the first accused. At that time, the defacto-complainant questioned the first accused why he was doing so. For which the first accused abused her by using filthy language and pushed her down. The second accused also pushed her by putting her chest, which resulted in the defacto-complainant fell down on the bricks stored by the first accused. The third accused kicked by legs on her chest and abused her with filthy language. At that time, the petitioners who are the police officers were present at the place of occurrence and instigated the accused to put up construction on the window of the defacto-complainant. 3. Thereafter, the defacto complainant had narrated about the occurrence to her husband who came there at about 2.00 p.m. The husband of the defacto complainant questioned the petitioners why they were watching the illegal activities of the accused. For which they told him to mind his business. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant made a complainant to the Deputy Commissioner of Police over phone narrating about the occurrence. Thereafter, the petitioners left the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and her husband went to the police station and lodged a complainant and from there, she went to the Stanely Hospital, where she was admitted as inpatient for four days. The first Petitioner has arranged to get her signature in a white paper and prepared a complaint on his own version and prepared FIR in Cr. No. 741/2004 and later on he referred the case as mistake of fact. 4. The first Petitioner has arranged to get her signature in a white paper and prepared a complaint on his own version and prepared FIR in Cr. No. 741/2004 and later on he referred the case as mistake of fact. 4. The defacto complainant has filed protest petition before the V Metropolitan Magistrate in CMP 322/2005 and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate after examination of 8 eye witnesses to the occurrence and upon perusing the records, has passed an order under Section 178(3) of Cr.P.C. directing the first respondent to further investigate the case and file final report in accordance with law. As the said order was not complied with by the first respondent, the defacto complainant has filed Crl.O.P. No. 8405 of 2005 before this Court for transfer of investigation and this Court videorder dated 18.04.2006, directed the first respondent to further investigate into the case and to file a final report within two months, under the supervision of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, MKB Nagar. 5. The defacto complainant has preferred a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, to register a criminal case on the proposed accused, as there was no response, she approached this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 18492 of 2006 for a direction to the respondents to register a case against the petitioners herein, the then police officers attached to P5 Police Station and this Court vide order dated 14.06.2007, directed the Prosecutor of the trial Court to take steps u/s 319 Cr.P.C., if the evidences disclose the involvement of remaining accused those who were not impleaded in the said case. 6. In this case, the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and 4 other witnesses were also examined. Among them, two witnesses were turned hostile and P.W.1, 3 and 5 were elicited the involvement of the petitioners into the occurrence took place on 26.9.2004 by abetting the culprits and abusing their official capacity being a public servants, as such the Assistant Public Prosecutor incharge has filed a petition u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to implead the petitioners herein in C.C. No. 5972 of 2006 to try them along with existing accused in trial. The said petition was allowed and summons were ordered to issue on impleaded accused persons. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners have filed a petition to quash the said order on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. 7. The said petition was allowed and summons were ordered to issue on impleaded accused persons. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioners have filed a petition to quash the said order on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. 7. This Court vide order dated 23.12.2011, has disposed of the Crl.O.P. No. 2652 of 2009, by directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to hear both sides afresh and pass orders on merits, according to law. It is stated that the charges have also been framed against the accused before filing of the above said Criminal Original Petition. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have come forward with the present revision praying to set aside the order passed by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/proposed accused contended that the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed at this stage and the same can be allowed only at the time of trial and hence, prays for allowing this revision. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant canvassed three aspects. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, Section 319 Cr.P.C., petition can be filed by the person concerned as per the evidence let in by the witnesses and that petition can also be entertained. In this case, the occurrence had taken place in the presence of the police officers and that is the reason P.W.1, the defacto complainant had preferred a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, to register a criminal case against the petitioners/ proposed accused and as there was no response, she approached this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 18492 of 2006 for a direction to the respondents to register a case against the petitioners herein, the then police officers attached to P5 Police Station and this Court vide order dated 14.06.2007, directed the Prosecutor of the trial Court to take steps u/s 319 Cr.P.C., if the evidences disclose the involvement of remaining accused those who were not impleaded in the said case. 10. 10. The learned counsel or the second respondent further contended that the present revision has become infructuous since the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has been implemented and charges have also been framed against the petitioners and witnesses have to be examined and at this stage, the revision will not lie. The learned counsel for the second respondent has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 , and prays for dismissal of the revision. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed on record. 12. From the perusal of the records it is seen that the sequences mentioned by the respective counsel is correct. This Court vide order dated 23.12.2011 in Crl.O.P. No. 2652 of 2009, passed an order directing the Metropolitan Magistrate to hear both sides afresh and pass orders on merits, according to law in a petition filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, that petition was allowed and charges also have been framed. There is no dispute regarding this aspect. 13. The short point for consideration is: Whether the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has satisfied that more than prima faciecase is made out against the petitioners or not has to be seen. 14. In this case, P.W.1, 3 and 5 were elicited the involvement of the petitioners into the occurrence took place on 26.9.2004 by abetting the culprits and abusing their official capacity being a public servants and in the presence of the petitioners, A1 to A3 have put up construction closing the window of the defacto complainant and when she questioned about the same, the accused pushed her down and she sustained injury on her head and the third accused kicked by his legs on her chest and she has been admitted as in patient at Stanely Hospital for four days. But in this case, as per the allegation of the defacto complainant no independent witness have seen the occurrence and no medical certificate has been produced. Furthermore, regarding the so called quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused, there is no independent witness except the interesting testimony of P.W.s 1, 3 and 5. Already Accused No.1 to 3 have been arrived for joining the illegal construction closing the window of the defacto complainant. Furthermore, regarding the so called quarrel between the defacto complainant and the accused, there is no independent witness except the interesting testimony of P.W.s 1, 3 and 5. Already Accused No.1 to 3 have been arrived for joining the illegal construction closing the window of the defacto complainant. Now, at this stage, the second respondent/defacto complainant wanted to implead the petitioners as accused No. 4 and 5 and the same has been allowed. Therefore, I am of the view that now this Court need not go into elaborate the merits of this case. The prosecution has already filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been allowed and thereafter, charges have also been framed against the petitioners. 15. As per the decision rendered by the Supreme Court reported in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. can be filed on three occasions. (i) During the commencement of trial (ii) Corroboration of evidence recorded by court after commencement of trial, (iii) for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court during the trial. So far as its application during the course of inquiry is concerned, it remains limited as referred herein above, adding a person as an accused, whose name has been mentioned in Column 2 of the charge-sheet or any other person who might be an accomplice. Therefore, there is no bar for filing of the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Further, the position of law is very clear in this aspect. Now, the question arises for consideration is whether the second respondent has satisfied the statutory requirements to file such a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not mentioned that more than a prima facie has been made out for allowing the petition and since the said observation was not there, the revision has to be allowed. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has not mentioned that more than a prima facie has been made out for allowing the petition and since the said observation was not there, the revision has to be allowed. 17. From the perusal of the order, this Court is of the view that in all judicial pronouncements a prima facie case is required but still in this case as per the sequence of orders already passed by this Court, I am satisfied with the same and the order passed by the Court below for impleading the proposed accused/revision petitioners is in tact and there is no need for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. However, without expressing any views on the above and as per the precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate need not prejudice with this observation. 18. On reading the allegations in the complaint, I am of the view that statutory requirements have been complied with by the prosecution as well as by the second respondent. Hence, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere with the allowing of the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. Already five witnesses have been examined and at this stage the present revision petitioners have been impleaded and charges have also been framed against them. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the evidence already recorded cannot be considered as evidence in so far as the petitioners/proposed accused are concerned. The first respondent is directed to produce all the witnesses before the trial Court and the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is directed to record the evidence so far as the proposed accused are concerned viz., chief examination and permit the petitioners to cross examine the witnesses and on that basis conclusion can be arrived at. 19. With the above direction, the criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petition dismissed.