Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide impugned order dated 04.09.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi and challenging the legality of the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 2. The second respondent herein had lodged a complaint on the file of Vadakadu Police Station, Pudukkottai District, against Gangadharan, s/o.Paulsamy (the revision petitioner herein); Palsamy, s/o.Raman; Karuppaiah, s/o.Raman and Palanichamy, s/o.Raman, on 06.05.2013 with regard to the commission of the offences which took place on 30.04.2013. The first respondent, on receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, has registered a case in Cr.No.51 of 2013, on 06.05.2013, for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) I.P.C. 3. The first respondent, after investigation, has filed the charge sheet/final report, against A.2, A.3 and A.4, thus: Accused (as per Charge sheet) Charges A.1 U/s. 294(b), 326, 506(2) I.P.C. A.2 U/s.323 and 506(2) I.P.C. A.3 U/s.326 and 506(2) I.P.C. and left out A.1 (in the F.I.R.) namely, Gangadharan, s/o.Palsamy. 4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, while taking cognizance of the offences, found that on perusal of the final report, prima facie case has been made out against the left out accused, namely, Gangadharan also and therefore, arrayed him as A.4 for the commission of the offence under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) I.P.C, vide order dated 27.06.2014. 5. The revision petitioner challenging the said order, filed Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2014 before this Court and the learned single Judge of this Court has found that while arraying the revision petitioner as A.4, the trial Court has not recorded the reasons with regard to the prima facie materials available and therefore, set aside the impugned order therein and remanded the matter once again for passing fresh orders by giving reasons. 6. The trial Court, on remand, has passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2014, arraying the revision petitioner as A.4 for the reason that the wound certificate relating to the second respondent/defacto complainant as well as the contents of the F.I.R would disclose that he has also participated in the commission of the offences and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/A.4 has filed the present revision. 7. 7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the first respondent after fair and proper investigation, has found that nothing has been made against the revision petitioner and therefore, left him out from the array of the accused and the trial Court without appreciating the scope of remand passed by this Court in Crl.R.C(MD)No.277 of 2014, has committed a grave error in arraying him as an additional accused/A.4 and prays for intervention. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent would submit that no doubt, the revision petitioner was arrayed as A.1 in the F.I.R which came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the second respondent and on investigation, the first respondent found that no incriminating materials have been made available against him and therefore, laid the charge sheet/final report against the remaining accused and on the basis of the impugned order, his case is being prosecuted against the revision petitioner also. 9. The learned Counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that in the F.I.R. in Cr.No.51 of 2013, it has been clearly stated that the revision petitioner by abusing him, made an attempt to cut with an aruval and also cut him and consequently, he suffered an injury on the left hand thumb and A.2/Palsamy cut with an aruval on the right hand wrist and he has fallen down and the wound certificate, dated 30.04.2013, issued by the Senior Civil Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Pudukkottai, would also disclose that he was attacked by a known person and suffered a fracture in his right hand - a grievous injury and the trial Court has taken into consideration the contents of the F.I.R as well as wound certificate, has rightly reached the conclusion to array the revision petitioner (A.1 in the F.I.R.) as A.4 in exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He would further contend that the first respondent, for the reasons best known to him, has recorded the statements only for the purpose of leaving out the revision petitioner/A.1 in the F.I.R and also invited the attention of this Court to the statements recorded during the investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. and would further contend that the impugned order is sustainable in law and on facts. 10. 10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and the learned Counsel for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record. 11. In Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 306, it has been held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only after the Court enquiry stage commences and during the course thereof and trial, as clarified by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 92. 12. The decision in Dharam Pal case (cited supra) was considered subsequently in the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh case (cited supra), wherein the following questions arose for consideration: "6.1. (i) What is the stage at which power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised? 6.2. (ii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) CrPC 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? 6.3. (iii) Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) CrPC 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? 6.4. (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 CrPC to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? 6.5. (v) Does the power under Section 319 CrPC extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who has been discharged?" 13. The Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, observed that 'It is the duty of the Court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. 6.5. (v) Does the power under Section 319 CrPC extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who has been discharged?" 13. The Honourable Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, observed that 'It is the duty of the Court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial' and held that 'Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc.'. It is further held that 'What is essential for the purpose of the Section 319 CrPC is that there should appear some evidence against a person not proceeded against the stage of the proceedings is irrelevant and the only material that the court has before it at the inquiry stage is the material collected by the prosecution and the court at this stage prima facie can apply its mind to find out as to whether a person, who can be an accused, has been erroneously omitted from being arraigned or has been deliberately excluded by the prosecuting agencies and the material should disclose complicity of the person in the commission of the offence which has to be the material that appears from the evidence during course of any inquiry into or trial of offence'. 14. The Honourable Supreme Court has answered the Question No.(v) as follows: "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 CrPC 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 CrPC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh." 15. This Court keeping in mind the ratio laid down in Hardeep Singh case (cited supra), has carefully scanned through the materials placed before it. However, insofar as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 CrPC has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh." 15. This Court keeping in mind the ratio laid down in Hardeep Singh case (cited supra), has carefully scanned through the materials placed before it. In the F.I.R, a specific allegation has been levelled against the revision petitioner/A.1 in the F.I.R that he abused the second respondent/defacto complainant, by using filthy and unparliamentary words and cut him with an aruval and consequently, he sustained the injury on the left hand thumb. The wound certificate, dated 30.04.2013, issued by the Senior Civil Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Pudukkottai, would also disclose that while the second respondent/defacto complainant was treating at the time of admission, told that he was attacked by a known person and it also discloses that he suffered a fracture in his right hand, which is a grievous injury. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has assigned reasons in compliance of the order of remand passed by this Court in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2014, dated 27.06.2014. 17. In the light of the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the present revision lacks merit and is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of the disposal of this revision and this Court has not touched upon the merits of the case of the prosecution and the defence to be adduced by the accused and the trial Court is to adjudicate the case on the basis of the quality of evidence let in before it. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.