JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused Ram Chandra u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the impugned order dated 5.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 42/2013 (State of Raj. v. Bhagwan Singh) whereby learned Sessions Judge allowed the application of complainant u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance for offence u/S. 376 IPC and u/S. 3(1)(XII) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Harassment Act and summoning the petitioner-accused through arrest warrant in an application u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. before learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 42/2013 for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 05.11.2015. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved this petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. and also recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. However, in all her statements recorded, she uttered the word " Bsdsnkj " Now during trial the prosecutrix in her statement had disclosed the name of the petitioner Ram Chandra. He submits that prosecutrix is a false witness and she is involved in the business of blackmail. Previously, also she lodged FIR twice for the offence u/S. 376 IPC wherein during trial she turned hostile. In the present case also in FIR, she levelled allegations against the accused. Without considering these facts, learned trial court ordered to summon the petitioner which is per se illegal, therefore, this misc. petition may be allowed and impugned order may be quash and set aside. 4. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Hotam Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors. 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 755 ; Sarabjit Singh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 998/2009 decided on 12.05.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hatti Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2015(4)CJ (Cri)(Raj.) 2065 . 5. 4. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Hotam Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors. 2013(1) WLC (Raj.) 755 ; Sarabjit Singh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 998/2009 decided on 12.05.2009 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hatti Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2015(4)CJ (Cri)(Raj.) 2065 . 5. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-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 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. 6. In the case in hand, prosecutrix lodged FIR wherein she levelled allegations against two persons named " 1- " Bsdsnkj " 2- Hkxokukjke " in the following terms:- " eSa dy th.k ekrkth tkus ds fy, 10 cts ds djhc ?kj ls fudyh gS xksj;k vkbZ cl esa cSB dj xksj;k igqWaph xksj;k esa eq>s Bsdsnkjth vkSj Hkxokuk jke ekLVj feys oks eq>s xkM+h esa ysdj vk;s vkSj Bsds ls 'kjkc ih vkSj fQj bu nksuksa us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA " 7. Though petitioner was named as " Bsdsnkj " in FIR and also in her statement recorded by the police but he was not charge sheeted. 8. Thereafter, in her statement recorded u/S. 161 Cr.RC. Though petitioner was named as " Bsdsnkj " in FIR and also in her statement recorded by the police but he was not charge sheeted. 8. Thereafter, in her statement recorded u/S. 161 Cr.RC. she again stated that:- " eSa xksfj;k esa cl ls mRrj xbZA ogkWa eq>s Bsdsnkj th ekLVj feys FksA Bsdsnkj th dk uke ugha tkurh FkhA vkil esa ckr djrs le; ekLVj th us mldks Bsdsnkj dgk FkkA ekLVj th dk uke Hkxokuk jke gSA Hkxokuk jke o Bsdsnkj th dks eSa igys ls ugha tkurh FkhA eSa muls igyh ckj feyh FkhA ;s djhc 1 cts eq>s xksfj;k esa feys FksA Bsdsnkj th us iwNk fd rqe vkt dgkWa tk jgh gksA eSaus dgk ekrkth ds n'kZu djus tk jgh gwWaA fQj oks pyk x;kA ekLVj th vk;sA mUgksaus ogkWa ij [kM+s gksdj ckr dhA ekLVj th dks eSa igys ugha tkurh FkhA igys uojk=k esa ,d fnu th.kekrk th ds efUnj esa feys FksA ogkWa eSaus esjk xyr uke crk;k FkkA ge ckrsa dj jgs FksA Bsdsnkj th0vkj0ts0 21 xkM+h ysdj vk;sA ekLVj th esjs ikl [kM+s FksA igys Bsdsnkj th feykA oks xkM+h lkbZM esa [kM+h djds iSny vk jgk Fkk fQj ekLVjth vk;sA fQj Bsdsnkj th ge nksuksa ds ikl xkM+h ysdj vk;sA xkM+h ds uEcj vkjts 21 irk gSA vkxs irk ugha gSA xkM+h lQsn dyj dh Fkh o dkys 'kh'ks FksA oks esjs ls ckrsa djus yxsA mUgksaus dgk fd rqe vPNh yM+dh gks] ge vkidh lgk;rk djsaxsA eSaus dgk fd vkidh lgk;rk dh vko';drk ugha gSA fQj mUgksaus dgk fd vkids xkao ls gh rqEgkjs eksckbZy uEcj feys gSaA eSaus dgk vki dkSu gks] eSa vkidksa ugha tkurh gwWaA mUgksaus crk;k fd eSa cjky dk jgus okyk gwWaA esjk ukuk Hkxokukjke ekLVj gSA esjs eksckbZy uEcj mlds ikl FksA esjs eksckbZy uEcj eq>s ;kn ugha gSaA ?kj ij Mk;jh esa fy[ks gq, gSaA esjs ?kj ij dksbZ ugha gSA eq>s ugha irk muds ikl esjs uEcj dSls vk;sA mUgksaus dgk fd uEcj rqEgkjs xkao ds yM+ds us fn;s gSaA blds ckn ge xkM+h esa cSBdj pys x;sA xkM+h esa eSa viuh ethZ ls cSBh FkhA oks yksx dg jgs Fks fd ekrkth pysaxsA ekrkth rks x;s ugha]---------- (illegible) gekjk [kqn dk 'kjkc dk Bsdk gSA ogkWa ls 'kjkc ysdj vk;sA eq>s ugha irk fd 'kjkc dk Bsdk fdl txg FkkA eSaus Bsdk ns[kk gSA ;g ugha ekywe fdl txg FkkA ogkWa ij 'e'kku ?kkV lk FkkA ,d nqdku Fkh vkSj dqN ugha FkkA dkSu lk xkao Fkk] eq>s irk ugha gSA ogkWa jkLrs esa 'kjkc ihus yxsA xkM+h dks ykWd djds uhps mrj x;s FksA eSa vUnj cSBh FkhA 'kjkc ihdj xkM+h LVkVZ dhA eSaus dgk fd Bsdsnkj th eq>s uhps mrkjksaA mUgksaus uhps mrkjk ughaA Hkxokuk ekLVj us dgk fd ge vkidks lkFk ysdj pysaxsA fQj cjky dh vksj jkLrk vkrk gSA ogkWa eq>s ysdj vk;sA dPph jksM+ ls vius ?kj [ksr ds vUnj ys x;sA Hkxokuk ekLVj dk [ksr FkkA jkLrs esa xkM+h dks nwljk yM+dk vkdj ys x;kA ckn esa thi ysdj [ksr esa vk;s FksA dPps okys jkLrs ls thi ls ysdj vk;s Fks o xkM+h dPps jkLrs esa NksM+ nh FkhA ,d yM+dk vk;k Fkk oks ys x;kA yM+dk dkSu Fkk] ekywe ughaA thi dks Bsdsnkjth ds lkFk okyk ysdj vk;k FkkA tSu&tSu mldks dg jgs FksA tSu pyk x;k FkkA Bsdsnkj oks esjs lkFk edku ij vk x;sA xkM+h dks vUnj dj fn;kA esjs dks mrkj dj dejs esa ys x;sA eSaus dgk dgkWa ysdj vk;s gksA rks dgk ?kcjkus dh ckr ugha gSA eq>s edku ij ys x;sA HkV~Vk mlds ikl gh edku ls FksM+h nwj gSA eSaus gYyk ugha fd;kA ml edku ds ikl dksbZ edku ugha FkkA mlls nwjh ij edku FksA eSa muds ikl jguk ugha pkgrh FkhA ogkWa ij ikl esa vkSj dksbZ ugha FkkA fQj :e ds vUnj ys x;sA fQj vpkud mldk HkkbZ dk yM+dk V;wcoSy pkyw djus ds fy, vk x;kA ekLVjth us dgk Fkk fd esjk HkkbZ dk yM+dk vk x;kA ekLVjth us ckgj rkyk yxk fn;kA Bsdsnkj th esjk eqag cUn djds cSB jgsA fQj mudk HkkbZ dk yM+dk pyk x;kA fQj Bsdsnkj th ckgj pys x;s vkSj ekLVj th vUnj vk;sA ekLVjth us esjs -------- (illegible) ysfdu esjk diM+s ls eqag cka/kk gqvk FkkA fQj ekLVjth us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA mlds ckn oks Hkh ckgj pys x;sA nwljh ckj Bsdsnkjth vk;sA fQj mUgksaus dgk fd Bsdsnkjth eSa ?kj jksV ykus tk jgk gwWA ekLVjth jksVh ykus pys x;sA fQj Bsdsnkj th us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA ekLVjth [kkuk ysdj okfil vkus ds ckn Bsdsnkj dks ckgj fudky fn;kA fQj nqckjk ekLVjth us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA mlds ckn [kkuk [kk;kA mlds ckn eSa ikuh ihus ds cgkus ckgj fudyhA muds eksckbZy dh VkpZ dh jks'kuh djrs gq, ikuh fi;k ugha vkSj ogkWa ls Hkkxdj jkLrs esa vk x;hA mUgha dk eksckbZy FkkA mUgha ds csM ls eksckbZy mBkdj ckgj vk x;hA ikuh ihus ds cgkus ckgj vkdj eSa jksM+ ij Hkkxdj pyh x;hA " 9. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. She again levelled same allegations against so called " Bsdsnkj & Hkxokukjke ", during trial prosecutrix disclosed the name of " Bsdsnkj " as "Ram Chandra and in her application also she disclosed the name of " Bsdsnkj " Though prosecutrix had referred the name of only before police and statement recorded u/S. 164 Cr.RC. but investigating officer has recorded the statements of Kishori Lal. Gopal Singh, Madan Lal, Mohan Lal and Bhagirath Mai who in their respective statements they named the " Bsdsnkj " as "Ram Chandra" from their statements -------------------------- (illegible) Raj. & Ors. (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this court observed that while taking cognizance as an additional accused court must be satisfied that clear and sufficient basis exists for taking such cognizance which is not disputed. 10. Similarly, in the matter of Sarabjit Singh & Anr. State of Punjab & Anr. (Supra) it was observed that the provision of Section 319 of the Code, on a plain reading, provides that such an extraordinary case has been made out must appear to the court. Has the criterion laid down by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. (1983)1 SCC 1 been satisfied is the question? "Indisputably, before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, the nature of the evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the court must also be such which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised----------------------------------(illegible). 11. In the matter of Hatti Ram v. State of Raj (supra) Co-ordinate Bench of this court observed that cognizance for the offence u/S. 319 can betaken only when the material exists, which may lead to conviction. Standard of taking cognizance at the initial stage where only prima facie case is to be seen, does not apply, while considering the application u/S. 319 which is also not disputed. 12. But here in the case in hand, as observed above, petitioner is named in FIR and also in police statement recorded u/S. 161 Cr.RC. thereafter statement u/S. 164 Cr.RC. was recorded by the trial court during trial. 13. 12. But here in the case in hand, as observed above, petitioner is named in FIR and also in police statement recorded u/S. 161 Cr.RC. thereafter statement u/S. 164 Cr.RC. was recorded by the trial court during trial. 13. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioner for taking cognizance for the purpose for summoning as an additional accused u/S. 319 Cr.RC. Any accused against whom though material is available on record but has not been challenged and during trial also evidence comes on record against him and if such material is sufficient to connect the accused with the crime then he should court considering all aspects of the matter, allowed the application u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. and summoned the petitioner-accused by the impugned order, does not call for any interference. So far as argument regarding conduct of prosecutrix is concerned, at this stage, such appreciation is not required, therefore, there is no merit in this petition and same is dismissed. 14. However, it is made clear that any observation made by the trial court in the impugned order and in the present order by this court shall not affect the trial of the case. *******