JUDGMENT : This Criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Mahila Judge), Erode in S.C.No.20 of 2017. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, between their son and one Pushpalatha (Deceased), the marriage was solemnized on 20.05.2015 and after marriage, they lived happily for about two to three months at Serampadi. Thereafter, since their son got transferred to Erode, they started living together at Erode. Some misunderstanding arose between the couples and all this because of the attitude of the deceased and in this regard, a police complaint was given on 07.12.2015 by the deceased wife, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, at All Women Police Station, Alanganallur, pursuant to which, the first petitioner was summoned to appear before the police station, where the deceased daughter-in-law and her father also appeared and it was compromised between the parties and the daughter-in-law deceased, voluntarily wanted to join and live with the petitioners' son and on the same day night i.e., on 07.12.2015, they left for Erode. However, on the next day, i.e., on 08.12.2015, they came to know that the deceased daughter-in-law committed suicide. 3. Consequent upon the said incident, an RDO enquiry was conducted under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and a report to that effect was filed on 22.12.2015, pursuant to which, the investigation was conducted by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A) and 304(B) of IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in P.R.C.No.95 of 2016 and thereafter, the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Erode, in S.C.No.20 of 2017. 4. When trial was commenced, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. On his chief examination itself i.e., on 03.05.2017, the learned Judge has invoked the provision under Section 319(i) and 319(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by thus, passed the impugned order on 03.05.2017, directing that the petitioners, who are the P.Ws. 15 and 16 were to be arrayed as accused 2 and 3 and accordingly, summons were directed to be served on them, under Section 319 (i) and 319 (ii) of the code. Aggrieved over the said order dated 03.05.2017, this revision case has been filed. 5. The prosecution case in nutshell was that, the deceased Pushpalakshmi married the petitioners' son, one Prasanna Venkatesh [A1] on 20.05.2015. Aggrieved over the said order dated 03.05.2017, this revision case has been filed. 5. The prosecution case in nutshell was that, the deceased Pushpalakshmi married the petitioners' son, one Prasanna Venkatesh [A1] on 20.05.2015. At the time of marriage, 15 Sovereigns of Gold, 2 Sovereigns of gold chain, = gram gold ring to A1 and other household utensils were given. After 2 = months, A1 tortured the deceased, demanding household items like, Refrigerator, Washing machine etc., Thereafter, due to the alleged complaint, the defacto complainant had taken her daughter (deceased) to her parental home. Subsequently, the deceased went voluntarily to join with A1 and thereafter, a function called “TAMIL” was performed at the parental house of the deceased, where both sides were present and celebrated it. 6. Thereafter, A1 was transferred to Erode, where the allegation was that, he demanded motor bike and gold ring for Deepavali from the deceased and her father. The defacto complainant claims that the motor bike was purchased in his name and given to A1, and with regard to gold ring it was assured that the same will be given during the time of Deepavali. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution that, on 29.11.2015, the deceased called the defacto complainant over phone and complained that A1 picked up quarrel with the deceased and in fact, the deceased claimed that she was driven out from the matrimonial home by A1. Therefore, on the same day, the defacto complainant went to Erode and took her daughter (deceased) to his house at Alanganallur, Madurai. 7. After they came to Alanganalur, on 07.12.2015, a complaint was given by the deceased, at All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, where, the prosecution claimed that, upon mediation, the deceased wanted to go with A1 to her matrimonial house and accordingly, on the same day, they left for Erode. However, on the next day i.e., on 08.12.2015, the defacto complainant had received a phone call from the neighbour of the deceased, stating that the deceased died by hanging. On enquiry, it was found that A1 went to office at about 10.00a.m., on the fateful day and while he was returning home for lunch at about 2.15p.m., the door was locked inside and thereafter, with the help of neighbours the door was broke opened and found the deceased hanging in the ceiling fan. 8. On enquiry, it was found that A1 went to office at about 10.00a.m., on the fateful day and while he was returning home for lunch at about 2.15p.m., the door was locked inside and thereafter, with the help of neighbours the door was broke opened and found the deceased hanging in the ceiling fan. 8. Thereafter, on the complaint from the defacto complainant, an FIR was registered on 08.12.2015 in Crime No.951 of 2015 and under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an RDO enquiry was conducted and he gave a report on 22.12.2015, stating that the death occurred, because of dowry harassment. 9. Thereafter, the respondent police investigated the matter and a charge sheet against A1 for offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC has been filed. 10. I have heard Mr.D.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.B.Sekar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondents. 11. Mr.D.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that, the respondent police after having thoroughly investigated the matter has filed a charge sheet, charging only A1, husband of the deceased, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC. 12. In order to substantiate and support its case, the prosecution side had given a list of witnesses as well as other evidences. Trial was commenced on 03.05.2017, where the defacto complainant was examined in chief as P.W.1. On examining P.W.1's evidence in chief examination, the learned Judge has passed the impugned order, directing the petitioners, who are P.Ws.15 and 16, to be arrayed as accused along with A1 and accordingly, summons were directed to be served on them, by invoking the provisions under Section 319 of the Code. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that, absolutely there is no material to show that these petitioners, who are the father and mother of the A1, had in any way involved in any such alleged harassment of dowry demand against the deceased and this aspect, though had been complained by the defacto complainant, had been thoroughly investigated by the respondent police and accordingly, they laid the charge only against A1. When that being the position, the learned Judge, invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code, has directed to array these petitioners also as accused in the case. When that being the position, the learned Judge, invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Code, has directed to array these petitioners also as accused in the case. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proviso to Section 319 of the Code is an enabling provision empowering the Court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person on whom, an action can be exercised, at any time after the charge sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of the judgment. 14. He further submits that, though such an enabling provision is available under the Code, the same has to be used sparingly and cautiously after subjective satisfaction of the learned Judge that, based on the evidence available during trial, the Court can come to a prima facie conclusion that, some cognizable offence has been made out against those persons, who were not shown as accused in the charge sheet. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, the said invocation of Section 319 of the Code, cannot be made for the present case, as the learned Judge has not even waited for completion of the examination of P.W.1, including cross-examination. The learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard, would rely upon the following judgments: (i) Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2017 (7) SCC 706 [in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2017]; (ii) S.Balakrishnan vs. The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai District in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6290 of 2008, by order dated 26.08.2009 of our High Court; (iii) Angamuthu vs. The Inspector of Police, Salem District & Others in Crl.R.C.No.405 of 2016, by order dated 21.03.2016 also of our High Court. 16. By relying upon the said judgements, the learned counsel would submit that, the impugned order arraying the petitioners also as accused in the case by invoking Section 319 of the Code is palpably wrong, as the said invocation using the discretion of the learned Judge, ought not to have been made at the earliest point of time, without even completing the other evidences in the case and unmindful of the prosecution case and therefore, the learned counsel seeks for interference of this court. 17. Mr.R.Sekar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent would submit that, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against A1. 17. Mr.R.Sekar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent would submit that, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against A1. However, on ascertaining the deposition of P.W.1, the learned Judge has come to a conclusion that, there is prima facie case against the petitioners herein, who stood originally as P.Ws. 15 and 16 and therefore, the learned Judge, by invoking Section 319 of the code has directed them to be impleaded as accused persons and accordingly, summons were directed to be served on them. 18. I have considered the said submissions made by both sides. 19. On perusal of the documents which are filed in support of the revision case, it revealed that, though P.W.1 had given so much about the alleged dowry harassment against A1 as well as these petitioners also, on record, first time a complaint was given by the deceased on 07.12.2015, at All Women Police Station, Alanganallur, Madurai. In the said complaint, the deceased had given allegation mainly against A1, husband and she had not given any specific complaint or made any specific averment against these petitioners, who were father and mother of A1. For easy reference, the said complaint of the deceased dated 02.12.2015, is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 20. On 07.12.2015, the deceased and her father, A1 and the first petitioner herein, who is the father of A1, had been summoned to the said Police Station where, the deceased had come forward voluntarily to give a written statement, which reads thus: “TAMIL” 21. Thereafter, it seems that the deceased and A1, left for matrimonial home to Erode on the same day i.e., at the night hours on 07.12.2015. Only on the next day, i.e., on 08.12.2015, it was reported that the deceased committed suicide and the same was noticed by A1, after he returned from his office, during the lunch hours at about 2.15.p.m. After the said incident of death of the deceased, the RDO concerned, conducted an enquiry under section 174 of the code and after having enquired both sides, he has given report that even though it was claimed by the deceased side that because of the dowry harassment, she committed suicide and inspite of the claim made by A1, husband side that they have not made any demand of dowry, the death has occurred, because of the harassment. 22. 22. Pursuant to the said report of RDO, the case was altered from Section 174 of Cr.P.C., to 304(B) and 498(A) of IPC and a report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police had been submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 13.07.2016. In the said report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, has recorded the statement of witnesses. According to him, P.W.27, who was the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, where the complaint was given on 07.12.2015 by the deceased, has deposed in the following terms: “TAMIL” 23. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also has recorded in his statement in the following terms: “TAMIL” 24. After the case was altered into Section 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC, investigation went on and after investigating the case, the respondent police has laid charge sheet against A1, the husband of the deceased. In the charge sheet, 30 witnesses have been shown as prosecution witnesses and among them, the petitioners herein were shown as P.Ws.15 and 16. The investigation went on, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, evidence of P.W.1 and also the RDO's report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., the statements given by P.Ws.15 and 16 and other witnesses including P.W.27, who is the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Samayanallur. 25. In the counter affidavit also, filed by the first respondent herein, he has stated as follows: I respectfully submit that after completion of thorough and detailed investigation, based on the statements of the witnesses and documents, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Erode North Police Station in Crime No.951 of 2015 under Sections 304(B) & 498(A) of IPC on 20.07.2016 and the same was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Erode and the same was taken on file vide P.R.C.No.11 of 2016, dated 20.09.2016. Subsequently, the case was committed to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Court [Mahila Fast Track Court], Erode in S.C.No.20 of 2017. 26. Inspite of thorough investigation, the police has come to a conclusion that only against A1, charges can be laid and accordingly, charge sheet was filed against him, where, the parents of A1, who are the petitioners herein, were shown as prosecution witnesses, i.e., P.Ws. 15 and 16. When that being the position, after commencement of the trial on 03.05.2017, P.W.1, the defacto complainant was examined. 15 and 16. When that being the position, after commencement of the trial on 03.05.2017, P.W.1, the defacto complainant was examined. In his chief-examination, he has made allegations against the petitioners herein that they also had demanded dowry from his daughter deceased. 27. Even in the statement under Section 161(3) of the Code, the defacto complainant, P.W.1 has stated about these petitioners and pursuant to the said statement and the earlier complaint given by him, the investigation was proceeded and ultimately, the prosecution has come to a conclusion that A1 has committed the offence of dowry harassment and accordingly, charge sheet was laid only against him. This position has been reiterated by the respondent through the counter affidavit of the first respondent filed herein and the relevant portion of the said paragraph of the counter affidavit has also been extracted herein above. 28. Therefore, if at all anything has been stated by the P.W.1 in examination-in-chief before the court below, the same is only a replica of his complaint given originally to the police, which was reduced into FIR, as well as the statement given by him, under Section 161 of the Code. Nothing has been newly raised by P.W.1 and no new material has been brought to the notice of the learned Judge by P.W.1, through his deposition. 29. When that being the position, whether the said deposition of P.W.1 in examination-in-chief alone, requires the learned Judge to invoke the provision under Section 319 of the Code is the issue raised before this court. 30. In this regard, the judgement of the Honourable Apex Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be pressed into service. 31. The Honourable Apex Court in Brijendra Singh's case (supra) has held as follows: 19. The court is the 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 inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence. 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 inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence. It also goes without saying that Section 319 Cr.P.C., which is an 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 Section 207/208 Cr.P.C., the committal etc., which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion. In Hardeep Singh s case, the Constitution Bench has also settled 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 inquiry 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 inquiry. 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 persons not facing trial in the offence. 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 offence. The evidence herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry 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 extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. 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 a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. This record was before the trial court. Notwithstanding the same, the trial court went by the deposition of 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 statements which was already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No doubt, the trial court would be competent to exercise its power even on the basis of such statements recorded before it in examination-in-chief. Thus, the evidence recorded during trial was nothing more than the statements which was already there under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded at the time of investigation of the case. No doubt, the 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 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 agreement therewith, nothing more has been done. Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny. 32. In similar circumstances, this court in two different cases referred to above, i.e., in Angamuthu vs. The Inspector of Police, Salem District and S.Balakrishnan vs. The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai District, has also opined that on mere deposition of P.W.1, complainant, it cannot strongly come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. In this regard, the following passage in Angamuthu's case in Crl.R.C.No.405 of 2016 cited supra is extracted herein: Therefore, when the complainant enters the witness box as P.W.1, if there are concrete materials in his evidence as against the left out accused, who were already named in the F.I.R., he can be proceeded as against them under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.. But the learned Magistrate cannot simply take his testimony as gospel truth, still he can subjected him to cross examination and see that any incriminating materials are there warranting issuance of summons to the left out accused. 33. But the learned Magistrate cannot simply take his testimony as gospel truth, still he can subjected him to cross examination and see that any incriminating materials are there warranting issuance of summons to the left out accused. 33. Likewise, in S.Balakrishnan's case in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6290 of 2008, the learned Judge has held as under, which strengthens the point raised by the petitioners herein. The said passage is extracted herein: In the instant case, P.W.1 has spoken about the involvement of the present petitioner and his wife in his chief examination. In fact, he had already implicated him in his complaint. The petitioner's name was dropped only after the investigation and the charge-sheet was not filed against him. P.W.1 had once again dragged the name of the petitioner and his wife. The learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have satisfied himself that the petitioner had committed offence and for such offence the petitioner could as well tried along with already arraigned accused. Simply because P.W.1 has spoken about the petitioner, will not necessitate the court to include the name of the petitioner with the said offences and the court ought to have satisfied itself with the other available evidences before summoning the petitioner. 34. If the aforesaid principle laid down by the Courts especially, the Honourable Apex Court in the judgment in Brijendra Singh & Ors. cited supra, is applied in the present case, this Court is of the view that, the learned Judge immediately on recording the deposition of examination in chief of P.W.1, has come to a strong conclusion that P.Ws.15 and 16 are to be arrayed as accused and accordingly, the learned Judge directed to issue summons to both to array them as an accused. 35. As has been discussed above, the prosecution after having thoroughly investigated the matter, has come to a conclusion that the case is made out only against A1. The original prosecution case can very well be strengthened by gathering support from the materials such as, the complaint at the earliest point of time given by the deceased herself before All Women Police Station where, nothing specifically has been stated about the petitioners. Moreover, the Inspector of police of the said Police Station had also given a statement that the deceased has not stated anything about the alleged demand of dowry. Moreover, the Inspector of police of the said Police Station had also given a statement that the deceased has not stated anything about the alleged demand of dowry. It may be some quarrel between A1 and the deceased and the actual reason for the said quarrel, has to be decided by the trial court only after completion of the trial. Since charge has been laid against A1, this Court does not want to express any opinion about the aspect as to whether there was any demand for dowry and in this regard whether there any harassment was noticed. 36. Further, on seeing the entire materials available before this Court as has been concluded and projected by the prosecution, no where, these petitioners have been shown as vulnerable for placing any charge against them and the prosecution itself even in the counter affidavit filed before this court has taken a stand that after thorough investigation only, charge sheet has been made only against A1. While that being the position, the extraordinary discretionary power vested with the Court under Section 319 of the Code as has been held by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgments referred to above, has to be invoked very cautiously that too, after having a subjective satisfaction of prima facie evidence independently, coming to the notice or knowledge of the learned Judge, at the time of trial, apart from the evidences collected by the prosecution. Without any such conclusive evidences come to the notice of the Court during trial, the Trial Court at the very beginning of the examination of prosecution witnesses i.e., at the time of the examination in chief of P.W.1, ought not to have invoked Section 319 of Cr.P.C.. Instead, the learned Judge could have waited for some more time in the trial, if any further evidence is given even by way of deposition/oral evidence, in corroborating or supporting the P.W.1's evidence and thereafter, the learned Judge could have taken a decision, as to whether Section 319 of the Code has to be invoked or not. Here in the case in hand, the learned Judge straightaway invoked Section 319 of Cr.P.C., without even waiting for the minimum time to get a prima facie clinching evidence more vulnerable than the evidence collected by the prosecution, to rope any other person, like the petitioners herein, in the charging area. 37. Here in the case in hand, the learned Judge straightaway invoked Section 319 of Cr.P.C., without even waiting for the minimum time to get a prima facie clinching evidence more vulnerable than the evidence collected by the prosecution, to rope any other person, like the petitioners herein, in the charging area. 37. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the said order of the learned Judge, which is impugned herein directing the P.Ws.15 & 16 to be arrayed as accused by invoking the provisions of Section 319(i) and 319(ii) of the Code is unjust and therefore, this court is inclined to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.