JUDGMENT & ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner complainant has approached this Court by way of this revision for challenging the order dated 5.12.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, Woman Atrocities Act Cases cum Additional Sessions Judge, Sri. Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 64/2013 whereby, the application preferred by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the respondents no. 2 to 5 as additional accused to face trial with the previously charge-sheeted accused Ram Kumar was rejected. 2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5 and have gone through the impugned order as well as challan papers. 3. Facts in brief are that Ram Kumar the principal accused was married to Smt. Manju sister of the petitioner complainant on 10.5.2006 Wholesome dowry was given in the marriage but the matrimonial relatives of Manju were not satisfied with the same. Ram Kumar and Smt. Manju were living together in the joint household at Bikaner. Smt. Manju was allegedly harassed and humiliated and tortured by Ram Kumar her husband, Santram father-in-law, Girdwari mother-in-law, Rakesh brother-in-law and Amichand maternal uncle (Mama) of Ram Kumar on account of demand of dowry. She complained of this maltreatment to the petitioner who requested her in-laws not to harass the girl. Ram Kumar joined coaching at Jaipur to train the C.A course and took Smt. Manju with him about a couple of months before the incident. When she came to her parent's home at Shyamgarh on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, she confided in her brother, the petitioner herein that she was being harassed at the matrimonial home. Ram Kumar was confronted with these allegations on which he assured that he would take proper care of Smt. Manju. On the day next to Raksha Bandhan, Ram Kumar took Smt. Manju to Jaipur. On 6.8.2012, the petitioner's maternal grand father expired and Smt. Manju as well as Ram Kumar came down to Shyamgarh for attending condolence on the 12th day. Ram Kumar returned leaving Smt. Manju behind. She stayed at her father's house from 17.8.2012 till 30.8.2012 During this period, she again complained that she was being harassed and humiliated in the maternal home by Ram Kumar husband, Santram father-in-law, Girdwari mother-in-law, Rakesh brother-in-law and Amichand maternal uncle (Mama) of Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar returned leaving Smt. Manju behind. She stayed at her father's house from 17.8.2012 till 30.8.2012 During this period, she again complained that she was being harassed and humiliated in the maternal home by Ram Kumar husband, Santram father-in-law, Girdwari mother-in-law, Rakesh brother-in-law and Amichand maternal uncle (Mama) of Ram Kumar. She was being taunted that Ram Kumar was preparing for CA examination and thus, he would become highly qualified and on this ground, she was pressurized to bring more dowry from her maternals. The girl refused on which she was threatened that Ram Kumar would leave her and marry another woman. She also confided with the petitioner that Ram Kumar was not desirous of having children. On 30.8.2012, Manju's father-in-law and mother-in-law came to the petitioner's dhani and took Manju back to the matrimonial home. On 1.9.2012 in the evening at about 8:30, Manju called the petitioner and told him that her husband had called her and talked to her in an abusive manner. She was threatened that she should bring a car from her maternals or else, he would leave her and marry another girl. Thereafter, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law started taunting Manju in relation to the same demand. She was not given food. The first informant petitioner received a call from Santram on 2.9.2012 at around 10:30 to 10:45 AM that Manju was not at home. On this, he along with his other relatives rushed to her matrimonial home at Village 12AS and saw that Manju's dead body was lying in the water tank constructed in the field of Santram. The petitioner lodged a report at the P.S Ramsinghpura alleging inter alia that Manju was done to death in her matrimonial home by the accused persons because she failed to meet the demand of dowry made by the accused. It was mentioned in the report that on the previous day, the husband Ram Kumar called his mother Smt. Girdwari and hatched a conspiracy to kill Manju so that he could remarry and in furtherance of this design, the accused killed Manju by throwing her into the Diggy. 4. The I.O, upon concluding investigation filed a charge-sheet only against Shri Ram Kumar the husband of the deceased and the other accused were exonerated. 4. The I.O, upon concluding investigation filed a charge-sheet only against Shri Ram Kumar the husband of the deceased and the other accused were exonerated. Statements of the witnesses viz., Ladu Ram PW1 (first informant), Mani Ram PW2, Dhanraj PW3, Sarchanda wife of Laud Ram PW4, Chandrabhan PW5, Ram Pratap PW6 and Dr. Pawan Goyal PW7 were recorded at the trial whereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C seeking summoning of the respondents herein to face trial as additional accused in the case. The learned trial Court proceeded to reject the said application by order dated 5.12.2014 which is challenged in this revision. 5. Pawan Goyal PW7 were recorded at the trial whereafter, an application was moved on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C seeking summoning of the respondents herein to face trial as additional accused in the case. The learned trial Court proceeded to reject the said application by order dated 5.12.2014 which is challenged in this revision. 5. Shri Mahesh Bora learned senior counsel representing the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the following observations made in the trial Court's order:— ^^7- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk izfrikfnr mDr U;kf;d n`"VkUr ds iSjk la[;k 110 esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 319 naŒizŒlaŒ ds rgr fdlh O;fDr dks ftls fd vfHk;qDr cukdj ryc fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k tkrk gS mls rHkh vfHk;qDRk cuk;k tk ldrk gS] ;fn mlds fo:) fopkj.k ds nkSjku dksbZ ,slh u;h lk{; vkrh gS] ftlls fd eq[; vfHk;qDr dh rqyuk esa mlds fo:) vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus ds fy, mldk Degree of satisfaction, tks Original vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksi yxkus ds fy, Degree of satisfaction Fkk] mldh rqyuk esa fHkUu gks ;k u;k gksA 8- dsoy ek= bl vk/kkj ij fd ;fn fdlh O;fDr ds fo:) lk{;] Xkokgu us vius 161 nŒizŒlaŒ ds c;kuks es nh gksrh gS] dsoy ;gh vk/kkj mls ryc djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gS cfYd U;k;ky; esa lk{; ds nkSjku ;fn dksbZ u;h lk{; vkrh gS] ftlls fd mlds fo:) vkjksi fojfpr djus ds fy, eq[; vfHk;qDr dh rqyuk esa Degree of satisfaction fHkUu gks D;ksafd tks lk{; i=koyh ij pkyku is'k djrs le; miyC/k Fkh] ;fn og lk{; vU; O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) izlaKku fy;k tk ldrk FkkA 9- gLrXkr izdj.k esa tks vk/kkj mDr pkjksa O;fDr;ksa dks ryc djus ds fy, fy;k x;k gS] og ewy :i ls bl vk/kkj ij fy;k x;k gS fd mDr O;fDR;ksa ds uke lk{khx.k us vius 161 naŒizŒlaŒ ds c;kuksa esa Hkh fy;s gS vkSj U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s vius c;kuksa esa Hkh mDr O;fDR;ksa dk ftØ fd;k gS vkSj mu ij vkjksi yxk;s gS] ysfdu ,slh dksbZ u;h lk{; i=koyh ij nkSjkus fopkj.k ugha vk;h gS ftlls fd mDr pkjksa O;fDRk;ksa ds fo:) Hkh vkjksi fojfpr djus ds fy, Degree of satisfaction vfHk;qDr ls fHkUu gksA 10- bl izdkj izdj.k esa fopkj.k ds nkSjku tks lk{; vk;k gS mlesa ,slh dksbZ Hkh u;h lk{; ugha vk;h gS] ftlls bu pkjks ds fo:) izlaKku ysus ds fy, U;k;ky; dh tks Degree of Satisfaction gS og ewy vkjksih jkedqekj ls fHkUu gks vkSj u gh i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; vk;h gS ftlls fd buds nks"kfl) gksus dk dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj gksA i=koyh ij tks lk{; miyC/k gS mlds iw.kZ foospu ds i'pkr ftu pkjksa O;fDr;ksa dks ryc djus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k gS] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds mijksDr fu.kZ; gjnhiflag cuke LVsV vkWQ iatkc ds funsZ'kkuqlkj izfrikfnr fl)krksa ds izdk'k esa mUgsa ryc fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA ^^ 6. He urged that the conclusions drawn by the trial Court in the above paragraphs regarding the degree of satisfaction required to be formulated for summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C, are absolutely unfounded. As per Shri Bora, the trial Court failed to comprehend the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2014 Cr.L.R (SC) 310. He urged that if the police leaves out certain accused while filing the charge-sheet and the evidence collected during investigation indicates their involvement in the offences, then it is not the requirement of law that evidence given at trial should be something over and above what was deposed by the witnesses during investigation. As per Shri Bora, the trial Court's conclusion that for exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C graver allegations should be indicated from the sworn statements of the witnesses as compared to the version deposed by them during investigation runs contrary to the ratio of Constitution Bench decision in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) and thus, he implored the Court to accept the revision and set aside the impugned order. 7. Per contra, Shri Farzand Ali learned counsel representing the respondents accused vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and contended that in Hardeep Singh's case the Supreme Court, while answering the question 4 has clearly expounded that for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C, degree of satisfaction emanating from the evidence given by the witnesses at the trial has to be higher from what was available during investigation. They thus prayed that the revision petition be dismissed. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order as well as challan papers. 9. Firstly, I proceed to consider the prayer made by the complainant to summon the respondent no. 5 Amichand the main accused being Ram Kumar's maternal uncle. It may be stated here that in the FIR lodged by Ladu Ram, a passing reference is made that the maternal uncle (mama) of Ram Kumar was also responsible in the harassment being meted out to Smt. Manju. When the statement of Ladu Ram was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, initially, the name of the maternal uncle was not mentioned therein and clearly appears to be inserted subsequently as an interpolation. When the statement of Ladu Ram was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, initially, the name of the maternal uncle was not mentioned therein and clearly appears to be inserted subsequently as an interpolation. The allegation that maternal uncle also participated in the demands being made from the deceased is exfacie unbelievable looking to the nature of his relationship with the other accused. Thus ex-facie I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order on merits to the extent of the respondent no. 5 Amichand. 10. So far as the other respondents are concerned, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C holding that the degree of satisfaction required to be spelt out from the evidence recorded at the trial should be of superlative degree as compared to the evidence available at the time of filing of charge-sheet. Apparently thus, the trial Court intended to convey that the evidence led at trial should be of improved degree from the version as deposed by the witnesses during investigation. Said view of the trial Court is ex-facie fallacious and also contrary to the answers given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case to questions no. I, II & III, which read as below:— Question Nos. 1 & III Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised? AND Q. III Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 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? A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sessions Judge need not wait till ‘evidence’ under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure becomes available for summoning an additional accused. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Code of Criminal Procedure; and under Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In view of the above position the word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. Question No. II Q. II Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure 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? A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Code of Criminal Procedure the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. 11. There is another aspect of looking at this issue. In a particular case where a witness, while deposing during trial gives a statement which tantamounts to making an improvement from the earlier version recorded during investigation and arraignment of additional accused is sought on the basis of such improved version, then the defence would be entitled to take a plea that no credibility could be attached to such statement of the witness because the improved version is perse not reliable. As per criminal jurisprudence and principles governing appreciation of evidence, such a statement would be liable to be discarded as amounting to a marked improvement from the earlier statement. 12. As per criminal jurisprudence and principles governing appreciation of evidence, such a statement would be liable to be discarded as amounting to a marked improvement from the earlier statement. 12. Thus, it is manifest that the trial Court did not apply its mind to the merits of the matter and rejected the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C by sheer misinterpretion of the ratio of Hardeep Singh's judgment. Hence, the impugned order dated 5.12.2014 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to reconsider the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C to the extent of the respondents no. 2 to 4 viz., Rakesh, Girdwari and Santram only. The trial Court shall rehear the arguments on the prosecution application under Section 319 Cr.P.C and pass a fresh order thereupon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. The revision petition is partly allowed in the above terms. 14. Record be returned forthwith.