JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.—This criminal revision is preferred against judgment and order dated 25.8.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shahjahanpur, whereby on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved in case No. 1279 of 2016 arising out of case crime No. 187 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur the revisionists have been summoned to face trial. 2. The facts, in brief, as mentioned in the impugned order are that the complainant, Ram Kumar Gautam-opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 319Cr. P.C. in the aforesaid case with a prayer that he had lodged F.I.R. at PS Kotwali on 20.3.2008, in which due to fear of charge-sheet being filed, the accused had entered into a compromise, where-after his daughter Nootan Gautam had gone to her matrimonial home. There she remained for about 6 months and gave birth to a son. Thereafter when the accused came to know that the police had submitted final report in the matter after investigation, they again had started harassing her daughter for demand of a Scorpio car. Then, the first informant moved a protest petition in Court. The Court, finding the evidence on record to be sufficient against the accused, rejected the final report No. 27/2009 on 11.9.2009 and took cognizance against the accused persons under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. under Sections 498 A, 323 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, against which the accused persons approached the High Court so that the proceedings could be kept pending for a long time. After commencement of the trial, the statement of complainant was recorded on 12.5.2016 and partly cross-examination was also made. The police/investigating officer had submitted final report against the mother-in-law of his daughter, Kamlesh Gautam and Jethani Dilpreet Gautam. It was stated by him (complainant/first informant) on oath that at the time of marriage on 21.2.2006 Deepak Gautam had made demand of a Scorpio vehicle and had told that ‘phere’ would take place only when the said vehicle would be provided or its price would be paid. The first informant knelt down to his knees with the request not to do so, but to no avail. Thereafter he arranged Rs. 4.00 lakhs somehow from his relatives and rest of the amount that is Rs. The first informant knelt down to his knees with the request not to do so, but to no avail. Thereafter he arranged Rs. 4.00 lakhs somehow from his relatives and rest of the amount that is Rs. 4.00 lakh was assured to be given after marriage, then only ‘phere’ could take place. Immediately 4-5 days after marriage, his daughter had been started to be tortured by these persons, which comprised her mother-in-law Kamalesh Gautam-revisionist No. 1, Jeth Deepak Gautam-revisionist No. 2 and Jethani Dilpreet and her husband Prakash Gautam and father-in-law Ram Mohan Gautam. During pendency of the case, Ram Mohan Gautam expired. The first application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not pressed by him because talks of compromise were made, but when the accused side refused to compromise, he had to move the second application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that Smt. Kamalesh Gautam, Deepak Gautam and Smt. Dilpreet be summoned to face trial. 3. In the objection against the said application, from the side of revisionists it was submitted that an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable and that the complainant/first informant did not have right to move the same. Such an application was permissible to be moved only during investigation on trial when there was sufficient evidence against accused on record. The complainant was examined only partly as he was yet to be cross-examined. His daughter’s evidence had not been recorded. The police had submitted final report in 2009, against which protest petition was presented, and the accused were summoned vide Court’s order dated 6.2.2010 on the basis of evidence on record, in which the Court had not taken cognizance against the revisionists as there was no sufficient evidence against them. There was no such evidence on record, on the basis of which, the revisionists could be summoned as accused on an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the Court would have to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence against the proposed accused or not. There were contradictions in the statement of complainant and his daughter with regard to demand of a Scorpio car as well as Rs. 4.00 lakh. Deepak Gautam and Dilpreet Gautam are Canadian Citizen and Kamalesh Gautam is permanent citizen of Canada. There were contradictions in the statement of complainant and his daughter with regard to demand of a Scorpio car as well as Rs. 4.00 lakh. Deepak Gautam and Dilpreet Gautam are Canadian Citizen and Kamalesh Gautam is permanent citizen of Canada. The said application was moved with a view to keeping the trial pending for long, hence the same deserved to be dismissed. 4. The learned Court below relying upon the position of law as laid down in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (85) ACC 313, held that the complainant/first informant in his statement, given as PW-1 in examination in chief, had clearly stated that besides accused Prakash Gautam, the demand of dowry was also being made by his mother Kamalesh Gautam and, Jeth Deepak Gautam, for non-fulfilment of which she was being mentally and physically tortured, hence prima facie there was evidence against them to be summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections and accordingly has summoned them. 5. In the memo of revision it was stated that the statement of opposite party No. 2 (first informant) was merely reproduction of his averment made in the F.I.R.. There was absolutely no new evidence recorded by the Court which could substantiate the allegations set out by the opposite party No. 2 in the F.I.R. against the revisionists. The trial Court had failed to appreciate that the daughter of the opposite party No. 2 was yet to be examined. The lower Court miserably failed to appreciate the dictum propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC 1992, wherein it was clearly laid down that summoning order under Section 319 Cr. P.C. should only be passed where there was strong cogent evidence against the persons prayed to be summoned, which, if left unrebutted, would result in their conviction and that such power should be sparingly used and not in a casual and cavalier manner. P.C. should only be passed where there was strong cogent evidence against the persons prayed to be summoned, which, if left unrebutted, would result in their conviction and that such power should be sparingly used and not in a casual and cavalier manner. The learned trial Court had also failed to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and others, in Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017, wherein it laid down the guidelines in respect of the complaint under Section 498 A that in respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India, impounding of passport or issue of red corner notice should not be resorted to in routine manner and that personal appearance of all the family members, particularly those who were stationed outside India should not be compelled. 6. In counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2 it is stated that in F.I.R. there are specific allegations against the revisionist No. 2 that he had demanded Scorpio car from the deponent at the time of marriage and that the present deponent had given him 4 lakh rupees after collecting the same from his brother and relatives. Also specific allegations are on record in F.I.R. against revisionist No. 1 also, that she took active participation in harassment of his daughter. The husband of his daughter, Prakash Gautam is a lawyer in Hon’ble Supreme Court, who, in collusion with Prakash Gautam, manipulated in getting the final report submitted by PS, Sadar Bazar, which necessitated filing of protest petition by him. The allegations made in the F.I.R. were completely true which had been corroborated by him by deposing before Court. Earlier an application was filed under Section 319 Cr. P.C. by him before the Court below after his evidence, but on assurance of compromise by Prakash Gautam the same had been not-pressed, but later on he refused to compromise in the matter, hence he had to move second application under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. The trial Court has passed the summoning order dated 25.8.2017 after thoroughly considering the material evidence available on record. P.C.. The trial Court has passed the summoning order dated 25.8.2017 after thoroughly considering the material evidence available on record. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) it is clearly held that the trial Court could summon even such accused persons who were not even named in F.I.R. and that there was no need for witness to be cross-examined for summoning an accused on an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C., if prima facie evidence was found sufficient against the proposed accused. 7. In rejoinder-affidavit filed by the revisionists again it has been reiterated that there was no evidence at all on record to suggest that there was any collusion between the son of the revisionist No. 1 and the investigating officer. No revision was preferred by the opposite party No. 2 against the summoning order dated 6.2.2010, wherein only the husband and father-in-law were summoned, while rest of the family members were exonerated. The version of the F.I.R. was verbatim the same as stated by PW 1 and there was absolutely no new evidence brought on record. There was no occasion at all for any sort of compromise between the parties which is evident from the fact that on the same very day, the son of the revisionist No. 1 had pressed his application under Section 311 Cr. P.C., which was allowed. The impugned order was nothing but an abuse of process of Court which is being resorted to only to harass the revisionists. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Rishab Agrawal and Shri Rama Shanker Mishra, holding brief of Shri Vinay Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the entire record of the case. 9. Record reveals that the opposite party No. 2, Ram Kumar Gautam lodged an F.I.R. on 20.3.2008 at 13.30 p.m. at PS Kotwali Sadar, Shahjahanpur against five accused namely, Prakash Gautam (husband), Deepak Gautam (Jeth), Kamalesh Gautam (mother-in-law), Smt. Dilpreet (Jethani) and Raman Mohan Gautam (father-in-law) under Sections 498 A, 323 IPC and ¾ DP Act with the allegations that his daughter Nootan had been married to Prakash Gautam on 21 February 2006. At the time of ‘phere’, Deepak Gautam put a demand of Scorpio car by saying that ‘phere’ would take place only when either Scorpio car is arranged or its price is paid. At the time of ‘phere’, Deepak Gautam put a demand of Scorpio car by saying that ‘phere’ would take place only when either Scorpio car is arranged or its price is paid. The complainant collected 4 lakh rupees from his brothers and relatives and knelt down to his feet praying for saving his honour on assurance that the remaining amount of 4 lakh would be sought to be arranged by him subsequently. He was a poor man. From the fifth day onwards of the marriage, these persons started harassing her daughter by tying her hands and feet and beating her. All this was disclosed by her daughter to him that she would be deprived of food for 3 - 3 days and some medicine used to be given to her in powdered form forcibly in water. Her mother-in-law used to say that she should be killed or should be made a lunatic so that her son could marry some other girl. Her daughter told him whether she was married to him for being starved. Her hands used to be tied and put under a chair on which Prakash used to sit to torture her and she would wail like anything. These persons started making demand of a Scorpio car soon after marriage from his daughter and when she showed inability she would be beaten, deprived of food and used to be given all sorts of tortures. His daughter had narrated about all this when she reached her parents house. On 11.6.2007 Prakash Gautam, Raman Mohan Gautam, Kamalesh Gautam had come to Shahjahanpur for taking his daughter to her matrimonial home but stated that they would not take her there till Scorpio car was provided. The complainant and his wife showed their inability and prayed for ‘bidai’ of their daughter, whereafter they agreed to take her to her matrimonial home on condition that he would give it in writing that they had never made any demand for dowry. Feeling compelled, for the happiness of his daughter, he gave it in writing, and mentioned therein the date of 11 June 2007. Thereafter they took her daughter to her matrimonial home. But after some time they again started harassing her daughter for a Scorpio vehicle. Feeling compelled, for the happiness of his daughter, he gave it in writing, and mentioned therein the date of 11 June 2007. Thereafter they took her daughter to her matrimonial home. But after some time they again started harassing her daughter for a Scorpio vehicle. On 15.3.2008 at about 7 p.m. Prakash Gautam and Deepak Gautam came home drunk and started saying that she should press her father to provide a Scorpio vehicle, at which she stated that her father was not capable to arrange for a Scorpio car; at this her mother-in-law, Kamalesh Gautam and Jethani Dilpreet told her that she speaks too much and should be hanged, the day-to-day dispute would be over. Thereafter Kamalesh Gautam, Dilpreet, Deepak Gautam and Raman Mohan Gautam had beaten his daughter and tried to pull her inside the room holding her hair, whereon her daughter started wailing. The neighbours reached for her rescue and counselled them that instead of killing her it would be proper that she should be left at her parents house. Thereafter all the above accused had thrown her at Bareilly turn, PS Shahjahanpur in the clothes she was wearing, beating her with kicks and fists saying that she should not return to her matrimonial home without a Scorpio car, otherwise she would be killed, and went back. Vishwa Mohan Mishra and Awdhesh Kumar Tripathi, acquaintances of the complainant had gone to his daughter’s home, where she narrated them entire episode. The medical examination was also prayed to be got conducted. 10. Upon lodging this F.I.R. a case crime No. 187 of 2008 under Sections 498 A/323 and ¾ DP Act was registered at PS Sadar District Shahjahanpur. After investigation in this case final report was submitted on 11.2.2009, in which it is mentioned that earlier investigating officer, S.I. Shri Ram Pal Singh, after investigation had submitted charge-sheet No. 224/2008 dated 25.7.2008 against Prakash Gautam and Raman Gautam, but the Circle Officer with-holding the charge-sheet, had directed for reinvestigation, hence reinvestigation was made and it was found that the daughter of the complainant, Nootan Gautam was living with her husband Prakash Nath in her matrimonial home and that the complainant did not want to proceed any further, hence for lack of evidence F.R. was submitted. 11. 11. On 6.2.2010, after about one year, protest petition was filed by the complainant/O P No. 2, upon consideration of which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur has mentioned in his order dated 6.2.2010 that earlier, after investigation in this case, charge-sheet No. 224/2008 dated 25.7.2008 was filed, which was withheld by Circle Officer who gave order for reinvestigation. After perusal of file it was found that during reinvestigation, Ram Kumar Gautam, his son Saurabh Gautam and wife Smt. Kamalesh Gautam had given affidavits to the effect that some good-intentioned persons had intervened and got a compromise effected, pursuant to which victim had started living in her matrimonial home. There was no dispute left. On the basis of the said affidavits final report was filed, although offence under Section 498 A IPC was not compoundable. The order of CO was not in accordance with law. After submission of charge-sheet by the first investigating officer against Prakash Gautam and Raman Mohan Gautam, compromise was made beguiling the victim and when final report was submitted based on compromise, she was again started to be harassed for dowry, in support of which the victim as well as the complainant had filed affidavits. Therefore the Court below found sufficient evidence against accused Prakash Nath and Raman Mohan Gautam under Sections 498 A, 323 IPC and under Section ¾ of DP Act and summoned them accordingly, to face trial. This order is not under challenge, hence no opinion is being expressed about its being in consonance with law or being erroneous. 12. Later on when the trial began, the complainant was examined as PW 1, who repeated the same story verbatim as was recited in the FIR, hence the same is not being repeated here again. 13. It has come on record that the other accused Ram Mohan Gautam (father-in-law) has already expired, hence proceedings against him have been abated. 14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that there was no additional evidence on record except the version which was written by the opposite party No. 2 in the F.I.R.. The same story as mentioned in the F.I.R. has been verbatim stated by him during his examination in chief as PW 1, believing which the learned Court below has summoned the accused to face trial under the aforesaid sections. The same story as mentioned in the F.I.R. has been verbatim stated by him during his examination in chief as PW 1, believing which the learned Court below has summoned the accused to face trial under the aforesaid sections. It is further argued that the said evidence had already been considered by the trial Court at the time of summoning the husband and father-in-law, but the learned trial Court had not found the said evidence to be sufficient to summon the revisionists at that stage. The opposite party No. 2 had not protested at the time when only husband and father-in-law had been summoned by the trial Court after rejecting the final reports, allowing the protest petition, but now at belated stage only to linger on the proceedings in the trial Court and to harass the revisionists he has moved an application under 319 Cr. P.C. against them. The learned trial Court has not cared to act in accordance with the law laid down in Hardeep Singh’s case nor in Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. (supra) and in a mechanical fashion has summoned the revisionists also. 15. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon S. Mohommed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak and others, AIR 2017 SC 4994 , in which Hardeep Singh has also been relied upon. It would be pertinent to refer the relevant paragraphs of this judgment which are quoted herein below: “27. Insofar as the power of Court under Section 319 of Cr. P.C. to summon even those persons who are not named in the charge-sheet to appear and face trial is concerned, the same is unquestionable. Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. is meant to rope in even those persons who were not implicated when the charge-sheet was filed but during the trial the Court finds that sufficient evidence has come on record to summon them and face the trial. In Hardeep Singh’s ( AIR 2014 SC 1400 ) case, the Constitution Bench of this Court has settled the law in this behalf with authoritative pronouncement, thereby removing the cobweb which had been created while interpreting this provision earlier. As far as object behind Section 390 of the Cr. In Hardeep Singh’s ( AIR 2014 SC 1400 ) case, the Constitution Bench of this Court has settled the law in this behalf with authoritative pronouncement, thereby removing the cobweb which had been created while interpreting this provision earlier. As far as object behind Section 390 of the Cr. P.C. is concerned, the Court had highlighted the same as under: “The Court is sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the Courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes efforts at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or enquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence.” 28. At the same time the Constitution Bench has clarified that the power under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. can only be exercised on ‘evidence’ recorded in the Court and not material gathered at the investigation stage, which has already been tested at the stage under Section 190 of the Cr. P.C. and issue of process under Section 204 of the Cr. P.C.. This principle laid down in Hardeep Singh case has been explained in Brijendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan in the following manner: “10. It also goes without saying that Section 319 Cr. P.C., which is enabling provision empowering the Court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person, not being an accused, can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of the judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 Cr. P.C., the committal, etc. which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion. 11. In Hardeep Singh’s case, the Constitution Bench has also settle the controversy on the issue as to whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319 (1) Cr. P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. 11. In Hardeep Singh’s case, the Constitution Bench has also settle the controversy on the issue as to whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319 (1) Cr. P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an enquiry into or trying an offence, which the Court can utilise or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. The word “evidence” has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of enquiry. It means that the power to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. The Court also clarified that “evidence” under Section 319 Cr. P.C. could even be examination in chief and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court in respect of complicity of some other person (s) not facing trial in the offence. 12. The moot question, however, is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr. P.C. and the related question is as to in what situations this power should be exercised in respect of a person named in the F.I.R. but not charge-sheeted. These two aspects were also specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh’s case and answered in following manner: (SCC pp. 135 and 138, paras 95 and 105 - 106) (pp. 1424, 1425, 1428 paras 88, 107, 109 of AIR) “95. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Cr. 135 and 138, paras 95 and 105 - 106) (pp. 1424, 1425, 1428 paras 88, 107, 109 of AIR) “95. At the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Cr. P.C., though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, held that on the objective satisfaction of the Court a person may be “arrested” or “summoned”, as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons. ** 105. Power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. In Section 319 Cr. P.C. the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words for which such person could be tried together with the accused. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to form an opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh’s case may be recapitulated: power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. can be exercised by the trial Court at any stage during the trial i.e. before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an accused and face the trial in the ongoing case once the trial Court finds that there is some “evidence” against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of the offence. The “evidence” herein means material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of enquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr. P.C.. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination in chief, without cross-examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since, it is a discretionary power given to the Court under Section 319 Cr. P.C. and is also an extra ordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.” 16. The other citation upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionists is Brijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the summoning order passed on an application moved under Section 319 Cr. The other citation upon which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionists is Brijendra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 , in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the summoning order passed on an application moved under Section 319 Cr. P.C., because the material which was relied upon by the trial Court was already available and yet after recording evidence of a witness to the same effect the accused were summoned. The relevant paragraph 15 is being quoted herein below: “15. This record was before the trial Court. Notwithstanding the same, the trial Court went by the depositions of the complainant and some other persons in their examination in chief, with no other material to support their so-called verbal/ocular version. Thus, the “evidence” recorded during trial was nothing more than the statement which were already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No doubt, trial Court would be competent to exercise its power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in examination in chief. However, in a case like the present where a plethora of evidence was collected by the IO during investigation which suggested otherwise, the trial Court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether much stronger evidence than mere possibility of their (i.e. appellants) complicity has come on record. There is no satisfaction of this nature. Even if we presume that the trial Court was not apprised of the same at the time when it passed the order (as the appellants were not on the scene at that time), what is more troubling is that even when this material on record was specifically brought to the notice of the High Court in the revision petition filed by the appellants, the High Court too blissfully ignored the said material. Except reproducing the discussion contained in the order of the trial Court and expressing the agreement therewith, nothing more has been done. Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny.” 17. One more citation finds reference in the memo of revision i.e. Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2017 SC 3869 , which needs to be discussed here. Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny.” 17. One more citation finds reference in the memo of revision i.e. Rajesh Sharma and others v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2017 SC 3869 , which needs to be discussed here. In this appeal, the main contention raised was that there was need to check the tendency to rope in all the family members to settle a matrimonial dispute. Omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband should not be taken at face value when in normal course it may be only the husband or at best his parents who have been accused of demanding dowry for causing cruelty. To check abuse of over implication, a clear supporting material is needed to proceed against the other relatives of husband. In this case the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down several guidelines to be observed which are as follows in paragraph 19 : ............. “ i) (a) In every District one or more family welfare committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The Constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the District who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority. (b) The committees may be constituted out of paralegal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing. (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses. (d) Every complaint under Section 498 A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such Committee. Such Committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication. (e) Report of such subcommittee be given to the authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint. (f) The Committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. (h) The report may be then considered by the investigating officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. (f) The Committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected. (h) The report may be then considered by the investigating officer or the Magistrate on its own merit. (i) Members of the Committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the legal services authority from time to time. (j) The members of the Committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable. (k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilise the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper. ii) Complaints under Section 498 A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated investigating officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within 4 months from today; iii) In Cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior judicial officer indicated by him in the District to dispose of proceedings including closing of criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord; iv) If the bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the public prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wives/minor children can otherwise be protected. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wives/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of red corner notice should not be a routine; vi) it will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected Cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such Cases are entrusted; and vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial Court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.” 18. Now, in the light of above position of law this Court would like to proceed to examine the present case. 19. It is apparent from the evidence on record that initially the F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons including the present revisionist under the aforementioned Sections and after investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet only against husband and father in law and rest of the persons were not found guilty. But somehow the Circle Officer withheld the said charge-sheet and directed re-investigation in the case, which the lower Court has held to be beyond jurisdiction of the Circle Officer. Be that as it may, after re-investigation final report was submitted against all the accused because the daughter of opposite party No. 2 had started living in her matrimonial home with her husband pursuant to some efforts of compromise made from both the sides. Although the opposite party No. 2’s version which has been dittoed by Court below is that the effort of compromise was made only because of the charge-sheet having been filed against two persons i.e. husband and the father-in-law and it was not a genuine compromise, because in course of time again the accused started meting out cruel treatment to her on account of non-fulfilment of demand of Scorpio car. Therefore the complainant/opposite party No. 2 moved a protest petition against the final report, after consideration of which the learned Court below found the evidence sufficient on record only to summon the husband and the father-in-law while rest of the persons were not summoned. It is also on record that in course of time during trial the father-in-law has also expired and the proceedings against him have been abated. It is also on record that non-summoning of present revisionists was not protested at the time of summoning of husband and father-in-law of the daughter of opposite party No. 2 only and now at belated stage the revisionists are sought to be summoned to face trial by moving an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C., which has been allowed by the Court below. It is also on record that the revisionists are residing in Canada which is not disputed by the opposite party No. 2 and that if they are made to face trial, definitely huge harassment would be caused to them. It is settled law as cited above that the learned Court below ought to have summoned the revisionists only when there was strong piece of evidence indicating their involvement in the present offence, much graver than was required to be seen at the time of framing of charge, to the extent that in case the same was left unrebutted, they could be convicted. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether the learned lower Court has been right in summoning the accused revisionist under the aforementioned sections on the basis of strong piece of evidence? If yes, what was that strong piece of evidence which has been found by the Court below, which came to its knowledge during trial only and as to why when the husband and father-in-law were summoned and the present revisionists were omitted from being summoned, they did not protest. If there was the same evidence on record which the Court is relying now to summon them, it would be concluded that the Court below took conscious decision at that point of time not to summon present revisionists, there being no evidence on record against them. As per above position of law it is absolutely correct that the earlier evidence which was on record against the present revisionist collected under 161 Cr. As per above position of law it is absolutely correct that the earlier evidence which was on record against the present revisionist collected under 161 Cr. P.C. during investigation, could only be used for corroboration of the evidence adduced by PW 1 before Court during trial. 20. It would not be out of place to mention here that the whole demand which is being referred by the opposite party No. 2 is that the revisionist No. 2 i.e. Jeth of the daughter of opposite party No. 2 was insisting upon a Scorpio car to be given in dowry by opposite party No. 2 from the beginning when ‘phere’ were going to take place. He applied coercion to the extent that ‘phere’ would not be permitted to happen till the said car was provided to the accused side and thereafter opposite party No. 2 somehow managed Rs. 4 lacs from his relatives and handed over the same to him and assured that the remaining 4 lacs (it appears to have been presumed that at the relevant point of time the price of the Scorpio car must have been 8 lakhs) would be tried to be arranged later on. Only after the said payment of 4 lacs and the said promise made, ‘phere’ could be held. Against the revisionist No. 1, the mother-in-law, who is also residing in Canada, it is alleged that she was also involved in meeting out cruel treatment to the victim for demand of Scorpio car. It is very strange to believe that such a demand of Scorpio car would benefit the revisionist No. 2 and also to that extent the revisionist No. 1, because both of them are also staying in Canada. All, who could be benefited by the said demand could be the husband himself, who is already facing trial. It appears that because of these reasons only, earlier at the time of summoning, the Court below might have summoned the husband and father-in-law only, as they could be the beneficiary of the said vehicle and not other persons of the same family. But it appears that the entire family has been sought to be roped in by the complainant only to put pressure on them. But it appears that the entire family has been sought to be roped in by the complainant only to put pressure on them. There is no denying the fact that if there was cogent piece of evidence against the revisionist, they could be summoned to face trial with other accused in the present proceedings as per law, but the record reveals that all the evidence that was provided from the side of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 at the time of investigation, was considered by the Court below and only the husband and the father-in-law of the daughter of opposite party No. 2 were summoned on that basis. This Court has gone through the evidence recorded by the Court below during trial, of PW 1 and it is found that the said statement is verbatim the same which has been mentioned in the F.I.R. and this entire piece of evidence was already before Court at the time of summoning of husband and father-in-law. Since that point of time there is no cogent piece of evidence collected or brought on record, which could be taken to be so strong piece of evidence against the present revisionists that if the same was left unrebutted, that could result in their conviction. It should also be taken into consideration that whatever has been stated by PW 1 on oath, is nothing but the narration made by his daughter of the cruelty meted out to her for want of dowry by the accused persons, she herself has not been examined so far, so as to get any direct piece of evidence against the present revisionists. Without any Corroborative piece of evidence that she was tortured for the said dowry, such summoning order would be bad in law. The record does not reveal any medical evidence showing injuries to have been caused to the daughter of the opposite party No. 2, as no attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 towards any such piece of evidence which could assist in drawing presumption of torture. The guidelines as set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case (supra) to eliminate roping in entire family in dowry demand cases also appear to have not been followed. 21. The guidelines as set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Sharma’s case (supra) to eliminate roping in entire family in dowry demand cases also appear to have not been followed. 21. In view of above analysis this Court is of the view that the impugned order summoning the revisionists to face trial under the aforesaid sections needs to be set aside because the impugned order of Court below is found to be erroneous as it has exercised its extraordinary power, which is supposed to be used sparingly, in a routine manner, simply on the statement of complainant/O P No. 2 without its corroboration by any credible evidence, against the present revisionists. The said order is accordingly set aside. 22. This revision is accordingly allowed.