JUDGMENT : S. K. Sahoo, J. - This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners Chittaranjan Mishra and Satyapriya Mishra challenging the impugned order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Criminal Revision No.35 of 2004 in dismissing the revision and thereby confirming the orders dated 29.07.2004 and 12.10.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rampur in G.R. Case No. 95 of 1995. The learned Trial Court in exercise of its power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 29.07.2004 arrayed the petitioners as accused and issued process against them holding that they have committed offences under sections 341/323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act. The petitioners filed a petition before the learned trial Court to recall such order which was rejected as per order dated 12.10.2004. The petitioners challenged both the orders before the learned Revisional Court which was rejected as per order dated 19.04.2005. 2. On the basis of the first information report lodged by one Debasis Biswal (P.W.14) before the officer in charge of Dungarpali Police Station on 25.09.1995, Dungarpali P.S. Case No.68 of 1995 was registered under sections 341/323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and other accused persons. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 10.08.1996 under sections 341/323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act against accused persons namely Jabadu Nanda and Yale Nag. Though the petitioners were named in the first information report as accused but the Investigating Officer did not find any material against them for which they were not charge sheeted. Since the co-accused Yale Nag absconded, the case against him was splitted up and the co-accused Jabadu Nanda was charged under sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 (1-B) of the Arms Act. During course of trial of co-accused Jabadu Nanda, fourteen witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court invoking its power under section 319 of Cr.P.C., came to hold that the petitioners appeared to have committed the offences under sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly, issued summons against them. On perusal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court invoking its power under section 319 of Cr.P.C., came to hold that the petitioners appeared to have committed the offences under sections 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and accordingly, issued summons against them. On 12.10.2004 the petitioner no.2 Satyapriya Mishra appeared through his advocate in the case and filed a petition under section 205 of Cr.P.C. for dispensing with his personal attendance and both the petitioners also filed another petition to recall the order of taking cognizance dated 29.07.2004. Both the petitions were dismissed by the learned trial Court on the very day. The petitioners filed a revision petition in the Court of Session which was taken up by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Criminal Revision No.35 of 2004 and vide order dated 19.04.2005, the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision and therefore, confirmed the orders passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rampur. 3. The petitioner no.1 died during pendency of this CRLMC application and as such so far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, this CRLMC application has become in-fructuous. Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner no.2 contended that power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one which is conferred on the trial Court which should be used very sparingly and only when compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other persons against whom action has not been taken. He further contended that in the present case, there is no such clinching material against the petitioner no.2 Satyapriya Mishra so as to invoke such power and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court are not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the same should be set aside. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is in the garb of second revision inasmuch as the petitioners have already approached the Revisional Court against the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court which was dismissed and therefore, this CRLMC application should not be entertained. 4. Prem Kumar Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is in the garb of second revision inasmuch as the petitioners have already approached the Revisional Court against the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court which was dismissed and therefore, this CRLMC application should not be entertained. 4. In case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni reported in (1997) 13 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 41, it is held that ordinarily, when revision has been barred by section 397(3) of the Code, a person accused/complainant cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to the High Court under section 397(1) or under inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of section 397(3) or section 397(2) of the Code. It is further held that when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or the order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensure. It is therefore, to meet ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397(1) read with section 401 of the Code. Therefore, merely because the petitioners earlier already approached the Revisional Court and were unsuccessful, they are not debarred from approaching this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. but such power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where there is glaring miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Courts or there is failure of the justice. Now, it is to be seen whether the orders passed by the Courts below falls within such category or not. 5. Now, it is to be seen whether the orders passed by the Courts below falls within such category or not. 5. It is the settled position of law that power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one and to be used sparingly and only if the compelling reasons exists for taking cognizance and such power can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on the application of someone including the accused already before the Court. If the Court is satisfied that any person other than the accused who is facing trial has committed the offence for which he should also be tried along with the accused facing trial, there is no dearth of power with the learned trial Court under section 319 of Cr.P.C. to exercise it suo motu which is obviously to be invoked when there is sufficient evidence available against such person. 6. In this case, there are three injured persons namely, Manoj Biswal (P.W.1), Saroj Biswal (P.W.2) and Debasis Biswal (P.W.14). Assault on injured P.W.1 Manoj Biswal So far as the assault on injured P.W.1 Manoj Biswal is concerned, though P.W.8 has stated that the petitioner no.2 dealt a bhujali blow to P.W.1 as a result of which he sustained bleeding injury on his right palm but P.W.1 himself has not implicated the petitioner no.2 in his assault. Assault on injured P.W.2 Saroj Biswal So far as the assault on injured P.W.2 Saroj Biswal is concerned, P.W.1 Manoj Kumar Biswal and P.W.3 Bikal Biswal have stated that the petitioner no.2 Satya Mishra dealt a bhujali blow on the head of P.W.2 causing bleeding injury whereas P.W.2 himself has stated that it is co-accused Chitta Mishra who dealt a bhujali blow on his head causing injury and he has not implicated the petitioner no.2 in his assault. P.W.7 Geeta Biswal is an eye witness to the occurrence and she has not implicated the petitioner in any manner in the assault of P.W.2. Assault on P.W.14 Debasis Biswal So far as the assault on P.W.14 Debasis Biswal is concerned, P.W.1 Manoj Biswal has stated that the petitioner no.2 caught hold of P.W.14 near the temple and co-accused Chitta Mishra (petitioner no.1 to this CRLMC application who is already dead) dealt a bhujali blow on the left side shoulder on its back causing bleeding injury. P.W.14 himself on the other hand stated that the petitioner no.2 Satyapriya Mishra assaulted him by means of bhujali as a result of which he sustained injury. P.W.3 Bikal Biswal is another eye witness to the occurrence and he has not implicated the petitioner no.2 in any manner in the assault of P.W.14. He has implicated only co-accused Chitta Mishra to have assaulted P.W.14 with a bhujali. P.W.7 Geeta Biswal is an eye witness to the occurrence but she has not stated anything against the petitioner no.2 relating to the assault on P.W.14. Therefore, it appears that two witnesses who have attributed specific overt act against the petitioner no.2 relating to the assault on P.W.14 are P.W.1 and P.W.14 himself but their evidence are completely contradictory to each other. 7. Thus a combined reading of the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the injured persons, it appears that the evidence against the petitioner no.2 Satyapriya Mishra is not consistent and it is discrepant in nature. On the basis of such material, it is difficult to hold that the evidence against petitioner no.2, if goes un-rebutted, would lead to conviction on the accusation of assault on the three injured persons. On going through the evidence, I am of the view that there was no sufficient evidence against the petitioner no.2 for impleading him in the case as an accused and the learned Magistrate has exercised its extraordinary power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. in a routine and mechanical manner. I am of the further view that by passing such orders by the Courts below, there has been grave miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of the Courts which is required to be corrected invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 29.07.2004 and 12.10.2004 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rampur in G.R. Case No. 95 of 1995 so also the order dated 19.04.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepur in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2004 are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the CRLMC application so far as the petitioner no. 2 Satyapriya Mishra is concerned, is allowed. Final Result : Allowed