JUDGMENT Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.: (Oral)- This revision is directed against the order dated 13.7.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul who dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was seeking summoning of respondents No. 2 and 3 as additional accused. 2. It is necessary to first notice some facts. 3. A complaint was lodged by Indu Bala since her daughter was missing from the house. She suspected Satish of alluring her daughter. 4. The incident took place on 1.8.2015. The girl was recovered on the next day. The victim made a statement on 3.8.2015 Annexure P-2 and named Parveen of their village. She had stated that she had gone of her own and her parents wanted to get a wrong statement made against Parveen and he was a regular visitor to their house. It is relevant to mention here that Satish alias Parveen alias Sanjeev is the same person. 5. The prosecutrix made another statement on 20.8.2015 and named Deepak and Renu. The police had only challaned Satish. 6. Charge was framed and the evidence had started. After the statement of the prosecutrix, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved and the complainant wanted the summoning of Deepak and Renu as additional accused. The trial Court examined the relevant provisions, the evidence and the case law and found no case for summoning the additional accused. 7. The allegations against Deepak were that while the main accused was committing rape on her, he was standing at some distance. The role given to Renu was that she had asked her (victim) to come to Dahina and thereafter Satish joined them and she left saying that she had some personal work at home. 8. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the documents available on record. 9. The additional persons were not named by the complainant nor by the prosecutrix in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the supplementary statement she named two additional persons which was an improvement. The police had also investigated and did not find their involvement. The trial Court assessed the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that there was no material to summon the additional accused. 10. The police had also investigated and did not find their involvement. The trial Court assessed the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that there was no material to summon the additional accused. 10. Having examined the provisions laid down in Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, [2014(1) Law Herald (SC) 47 : 2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 225 (SC)] : 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal)623, I find that there was no prima facie case for summoning the additional accused. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary power and has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised merely because they have been named. The degree of satisfaction for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be more than prima facie. 11. I find no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Court below. 12. There is no merit in the revision and the same is dismissed.