JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. 1. A challenge has been made against the order passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City (Karauli) dated 20.04.2015, whereby learned revisional court has upheld the order passed by trial court, allowing the application preferred under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against both the petitioners for offence/s punishable under Sections 323, 341/34 of IPC. 2. Taking support of judgment rendered in Gokul Chand & Another vs. State of Rajasthan & Others 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 537, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is vital contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as to at what place the alleged blow landed, independent witness has turned hostile and injuries are not medically supported, learned court below has erred in passing the impugned order by summoning the petitioners, while deciding the application preferred under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. since there was no occasion to pass summoning order against the petitioner because cogent evidence is lacking against the petitioners, so the order impugned, which has subsequently wrongly been confirmed by the revisional court, be quashed. 3. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, the complainant, has contended that both the accused persons were rightly named in the FIR and all the injured persons have meticulously named them in the incident, both the petitioners Mohit and Smt. Manju have taken active participation in the incident and have been named in the FIR as well and in the testimony of both the injured persons namely Haricharan and Asha, they have been attributed role in inflicting injuries as well as one of the eye witness Ms. Anita has also corroborated this aspect that both the petitioners have taken active part in the incident and have inflicted injuries, so the order impugned does not suffer from any perversity whatsoever and petition lacks merit, so be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material and gone through the contents of the statements recorded and perused the FIR. 5. Anita has also corroborated this aspect that both the petitioners have taken active part in the incident and have inflicted injuries, so the order impugned does not suffer from any perversity whatsoever and petition lacks merit, so be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material and gone through the contents of the statements recorded and perused the FIR. 5. FIR No. 589 dated 02.08.2012, which has been lodged by injured complainant Haricharan, has got specific allegations against both Smt. Manju and Mohit and they have been shown to have inflicted injuries by taking active participation in the incident and contents of FIR are as following:- ^^Ekgksn;] okD;kr eqdnek gktk bl Ádkj gS fd fnuakd 02-08-12 dks ,d ipkZ c;ku et:o Jh gfjpj.k 'kekZ iq= Jh xqytkjh yky 'kekZ fuoklh czg~eiqjh dkWyksuh c;kuk jksM fg.MkSuflVh dk vLirky fg.MkSu ls tfj;s Mkd bl vk'k; dk ÁkIr gqvk dh fd vkt fnuakd 02-08-12 dks le; 12-30 ihŒ,eŒ dh ckr gS fd esjk edku xksisUæ iq= jk/ks';ke jk; dk edku vkeus&lkeus gS xksisUæ viuh 407 VkVk vkjts&34&th,&0794 dks jkstkuk esjs edku ds lkeus [kM+h dj nsrk gSA vkSj jsl nsdj Ánw"ku QSykrk gS eSaus xksisUæ ls euk fd;k dh viuh xkMh dks vius edku ds lkeus gh [kMh djks o xkMh ls esjs edku dk NTtk VwV x;k eSusa NTts VwVus o xkMh [kM+h djus dh dgk rks blh ckr ij ukjkt gksdj xksisUæ iq= jk/ks';ke ,oa mldk iq= jfo] ;ksxs'k iq= xksisUæ ,oa mldh iRuh eatw ,oa HkkbZ gjh'k o eksfgr us esjs lkFk xksisUæ us nkfgus iatk ij vaxwBk ds ikl ykBh ekjh o lHkh us feyhdj ykr eqDdks ls ekjihV dh esjh iRuh vk'kk o yMdh vuhrk us eq>s cpk;k rks esjh iRuh vk'kk ds lkFk jfo us ck;sa gkFk dh dykbZ ij ykBh ekjh eSa fpYyk;k rks eq>s tks[kjke iq= xksiky tkV 'ksjiqj ,oa lR;ukjk;.k 'kekZ iq= gfjpj.k 'kekZ us eq>s cpk;k esjh ekjihV vke jkLrk czg~Ekiqjh dkWyksuh dh gSA eSa csgks'k gqvk rks eq>s esjs yMdk lR;ukjk;.k o vkuan dqekj us ljdkjh vLirky fg.MkSuflVh esa HkrhZ djok;kA vkfn fjiksVZ ij eqŒuaŒ&589@12 /kkjk 341] 323] vkbZŒihŒlhŒ esa dk;e fd;k tkdj rrh'k 'kq: dh xbZA** 6. Perusal of the statements recorded does reveal that PW 3 Haricharan Sharma, complainant/injured, has stated that Mohit and Smt. Manju participated in the incident and inflicted injuries and relevant examination-in-chief of Haricharan Sharma reads as under:- ^^fQj xksisUæ] eksfgr] jfo] eUtw] gjh'k] nhis'k vkSj ;ksxs'k vk,] bUgksusa esjs lkFk xkyh&xykSp dh vkSj mlds ckn ykBh;ka esjs o esjh iRuh ds lkFk nsus yx x,A esjs flj esa eksfgr us ykBh Hkh ekjh Fkh vkSj esjs ck;sa iSj ij ;ksxs'k us ekjhA gkFkksa ij xksisUæ us ekjh vkSj lHkh us ykr ?kqls Hkh pyk, FksA esjh iRuh ds flj esa jfo us vkSj eUtw us ekjh FkhA esjh iRuh ds gkFk esa eksfgr us ekjh FkhA chp cpko djkus igyh iRuh vk;h vkSj fQj vkuUn vkSj lR;ukjk;.k vkSj tks[kjke vkSj vuhrk gekjh cPph] chp cpko djkus vk, FksA fQj eq>s cPps mBkdj vLirky ys x, FksA** 7. Likewise, PW 4 Asha has also stated that Smt. Manju and Mohit were there in causing the injuries alongwith other co-accused persons and specific role of Smt. Manju, Harish and Mohit has been attributed, similarly eye witness Anita Kumari has also stated that besides other accused persons, Mohit and Smt. Manju came armed with 'danda' and she has further stated; ^^fQj nhis'k] ;ksxs'k] jfo] eksfgr] gjh'k] eatw] xksisUæ lHkh M.Mk ysdj vk x,A ;s dqy 6&7 tus FksA bu yksxks us esjh eEeh vkSj ikik gjhpj.k 'kekZ dh ekjihV 'kq: dj nh---------esjs eka&cki dh ekjihV bu lkrksa us M.Mks ls dh FkhA fQj vkuUn vkSj lR;ukjk;.k vkSj tks[kjke Hkh vk x,] bUgksusa vkSj eSus chp cpko djk;k FkkA fQj esjs eka&cki dks bZykt gsrq fg.MkSu vLirky ys x,A** 8. PW 2 Jokhram has also stated that the beating persons comprises of six to seven, Haricharan and his wife were being beaten by the front living neighbours, recognizing the accused persons he has also stated that both the two persons present in the court were involved in the incident, though he does not know their names, both Haricharan and Asha had sustained injuries, he has also stated that he can recognize all the accused persons by face. 9. Appraisal of the aforesaid reflects that FIR as well as testimony of both the injured persons does very well name both the petitioner accused persons having involved in the incident, their role and their involvement has meticulously been described. 10. 9. Appraisal of the aforesaid reflects that FIR as well as testimony of both the injured persons does very well name both the petitioner accused persons having involved in the incident, their role and their involvement has meticulously been described. 10. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the Accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the Accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence, which he appears to have committed. 11. The Court, thus, during the trial on the basis of any evidence is fully empowered to proceed against any person, whose name was not even included in the F.I.R. or the Charge Sheet. The parameters of exercise of power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has been explained by this Court time and again. 12. It is sufficient to refer to Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 92 , where this Court had considered the following issue amongst others :- 6.4. (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an Accused? Whether the power Under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the Accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? 13. The Constitution Bench judgment in the above judgment has held that Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure Court can proceed against any person, who is not an Accused in a case before it. The Constitution Bench, however, has held that the person against whom the Court decides to proceed, "has to be a person whose complicity may be indicated and connected with the commission of the offence". 14. Answering the Issue No. (iv) as noticed above, in Paragraph Nos. 105 and 106 of the judgment, following was laid down by the Constitution Bench: 105. Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Answering the Issue No. (iv) as noticed above, in Paragraph Nos. 105 and 106 of the judgment, following was laid down by the Constitution Bench: 105. Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure to form any opinion as to the guilt of the Accused. 15. The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and as dealt in Labhuji Amrat Ji Thakor and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat and decided on 13.11.2018. 16. The Constitution Bench has given a caution that power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant and as dealt in Labhuji Amrat Ji Thakor and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat and decided on 13.11.2018. 16. Upon going through the deposition and contents of FIR, it is undoubtedly candid that name of both the accused persons has appeared in the FIR, which has been lodged promptly as well as both the injured persons and one of the eye witness have named their specific role and involvement in the incident. 17. Learned revisional court, while upholding the order impugned, passed by the trial court, at the time of allowing the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., has observed ; ^^Ádj.k esa U;k;ky; ds le{k ijhf{kr xokgku ds dFkuksa dks ns[ksa rks Qfj;knh@vkgrku gfjpj.k] vk'kknsoh o ,d vU; ÁR;{kn'khZ lk{kh vfurk us vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa ekSds ij fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds mifLFkr gksus vkSj ekjihV ds d`R; esa Hkkx fy;s tkus dk leFkZu fd;k gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us U;k; n`"VkUr 2013 ¼4½ fØfeuy ykW fjiksVZj ¼jktŒ½ 2079 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd /kkjk 319 nŒÁŒlaŒ ds ÁkFkZuk i= esa Á;qDr 'kCnkoyh **lk{;** esa eq[; ijh{kk o Áfrijh{kk 'kkfey gS rFkk /kkjk 319 nŒÁŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr vkosnu fu.khZr djrs le; lEiw.kZ c;ku ij fopkj djuk gksxkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Áfrikfnr mijksDr fof/kd fLFkfr ds Øe esa xokgku dh ftjg esa vk;s dFkuksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA bu xokgku dh ftjg esa Hkh ,slk dksbZ rF; ÁdV ugha gqvk gS fd ftlls mDr xokgku }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZx.k eatw o eksfgr dh ekSds ij mifLFkfr o ekjihV ds d`R; esa Hkkx fy;s tkus ckcr nh x;h lk{; [kf.Mr gksrh gksA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o rF;ksa dh lqlaxr foospuk vius vkns'k esa dh gS rFkk bl Lrj ij v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o rF;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa fof/klEer~] U;k;laxr gS] ftlesa dksbZ v'kq)rk] voS/kkfudrk utj ugha vkrh gS vkSj mDr vkns'k esa bl Lrj ij gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA** 18. Pondering upon the afore-discussed facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of substance and there appears no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. Pondering upon the afore-discussed facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of substance and there appears no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. Resultantly, the petition fails and stands dismissed accordingly.