JUDGMENT : 1. The revision petitioners herein are the proposed accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013. 2. Brief facts leading to the above Criminal Revision Case are as under: The respondents 1 and 2 herein/complainants have filed a petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017, under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal, for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989, to implead the petitioners herein as accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013 and the same was allowed and hence, the Criminal Revision Case. 3. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that the defacto complainant viz. Sellammal has given a complaint and the same was registered in Crime No. 168 of 2012, for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, 1989. 4. The nutshell of allegations in the complaint are as under: (a) On 06.06.2012, the second respondent police has registered a case in Crime No. 168 of 2012 against the revision petitioners herein (A2 and A3) and the respondents 3 to 5(A1, A4 and A5) for the alleged offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, on the basis of a complaint given by one K. Sellammal alleging that the accused persons had committed the alleged crime on 13.05.2021. (b) Thus, the prosecution case is that the accused persons had obstructed the right of entry in and over the cart track which was allegedly enjoyed by the defacto complainant for years together. Whileso, on 13.05.2012 at 08.00 a.m. when the complainant was driving her bullock cart loaded with agricultural produces, she was intercepted by the accused persons and they have abused her by using her caste name, and they have also criminally intimated with dire consequences. 5. The first petitioner is a practising Lawyer/A2 and the second petitioner/A3 is his mother, aged about 70 years (at the time of the alleged offence in the year 2012). The petitioners herein who arrayed as A2 and A3 in FIR were deleted from the case pursuant to the investigation conducted by the respondents 1 and 2. 5. The first petitioner is a practising Lawyer/A2 and the second petitioner/A3 is his mother, aged about 70 years (at the time of the alleged offence in the year 2012). The petitioners herein who arrayed as A2 and A3 in FIR were deleted from the case pursuant to the investigation conducted by the respondents 1 and 2. The reason being, the first petitioner was not present at the place alleged occurrence on 13.05.2012, whereas, he accompanied with the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed in I.A. No. 180 of 2012 to inspect the suit property in O.S. No. 86 of 2012 at T. Goundampalayam, Tiruchengode Taluk whereas the alleged occurrence took place at Adhi Muthan Pallam. 6........ (a) It is seen from the connected records that the complainant PW-1 had already filed a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 27852 of 2013 to conduct further investigation in Crime No. 168 of 2012 to include the petitioners as the accused and it was closed on 31.01.2014 and thereafter, the complainant had also filed Crl. O.P. No. 16997 of 2012, W.P. No. 23170 of 2012 and W.P. No. 13363 of 2013 before this Court and suffered a line of orders dated 20.07.2012, 28.08.2012 and 25.11.2013 respectively. (b) Thus, this Court finds that initially these petitioners were arrayed as A2 and A3 in FIR in Crime No. 168 of 2012 and after investigation, the respondent police have dropped the present reversion petitioners from the charge-sheet on obtaining necessary approval from the District Public Prosecutor, charge-sheet has been filed and PRC was taken on file and case was committed to the Sessions and re-numbered as S.C. No. 3 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namkkal. When the trial is in progress PW-1/defacto complainant viz. Sellammal deposed in support of her FIR as mentioned and referred the names of the petitioners herein along with the respondent 3 to 5 herein. 7. On the subsequent hearing, it appears that the respondents 1 and 2, (investigation agency), based upon the evidence of PW-1, had filed the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017, filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to array the petitioners as accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013, summons were issued and counter was filed. After counter and enquiry, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, has allowed the above said Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017, filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C to array the petitioners as accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013, summons were issued and counter was filed. After counter and enquiry, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, has allowed the above said Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017, filed by the prosecution and directed the revision petitioners herein to face the trial. 8. The sum and substance of the counter filed by the petitioners in impleading them as an accused or adding them as accused in S.C. No. 3 of 2013 are that the revision petitioners herein were not at all present at the time of the alleged occurrence, but, they were also implicated falsely for an oblique motive. 9. Admittedly, after filing of the charges, the respondents 1 and 2 herein/investigation agency, after investigation, had dropped the names of the revision petitioners herein and filed charge-sheet and it was taken on file and numbered as PRC and subsequently, numbered as S.C. No. 3 of 2013. 10. When the PW-1 was in the witness box, it appears that he has filed Crl. O.P. No. 27852 of 2014, before this Court for further investigation and the same was allowed. After investigation conducted by the police by examining LW-1 and LW-2 these proposed accused were not committed offence came to the existence that prima facie no material against the proposed accused and accordingly, dropped the names of the accused and filed charge-sheet assumes significance. 11. Averments in the petition is that during the trial PW-1 deposed that the petitioners herein viz. Chendrasekaran and his mother Pappathi, joined together with the first accused viz. Raja and wrongfully restrained the complainant from taking tapiaco load in the disputed pathway and also scolded her by calling her caste name in a public view. In the counter filed by the revision petitioners herein, it is alleged that the alleged occurrence which took place on 13.05.2012 was reported to the police on 06.06.2012 would expose falsity in her complaint. Further, the fact remains that on 13.05.2012 at 08.00 p.m. the first petitioner accompanied with an advocate commissioner, who was appointed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Tirchengode, to visit the suit properties in O.S. No. 86 of 2012. Further, the fact remains that on 13.05.2012 at 08.00 p.m. the first petitioner accompanied with an advocate commissioner, who was appointed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Tirchengode, to visit the suit properties in O.S. No. 86 of 2012. Further, the first petitioner was in the suit property at 08.00 a.m. on 13.02.2012 as evident from the Commissioner's Report filed in I.A. No. 180 of 2012, dated 04.06.2012, whereas the alleged occurrence took place at Adhi Muthan Pallam, Karumapuram Village which is far away from the suit property in O.S. No. 86 of 2012. Further, the respondents 1 and 2 have verified the said fact, during the course of the investigation and accordingly, dropped the names of these revision petitioners. 12. After perusal of FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and complaint given by PW-1, this Court finds that the Civil Suit is pending between the parties with regard to the pathway. 13. In the decision reported in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (3) SCC 92 the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be a decree of satisfaction for invoking the powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. the decree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. Further, the power is discretionary and an extraordinary one. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. 14. In this case, the evidence of PW-1 and the averments in the petition are very vague, bald and laconic. Further, the “evidence” even the materials collected by the respondents 1 and 2 at the stage of enquiry/investigation in this case, the trial Court has exercised the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a casual manner, which is totally against the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (7) SCC 706 . 15. 15. In the decision reported in Shiv Prakash Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2019 (6) CTC 106 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Accused named in FIR was dropped in Charge-sheet - Investigation reveals that Accused named in FIR was not present at the time of occurrence - Contradictory statement of Prosecution Witnesses - Application filed by Complainant to summon dropped Accused - Standard of proof for summoning person is higher than standard of proof for framing a charge - Power under 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly with circumspection - Material collected during investigation warrants dropping of Accused - Additional Accused cannot be summoned in absence of substantial material warranting issuance of Summon - Order of Trial Court declining to summon Additional Accused upheld.” 16. In the judgment reported in S. Mohammed Ispahani vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 226 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power of Court to summon persons, not named in the charge-sheet, to face on going trial - nature of evidence that may be relied upon for exercise of the powers and law laid down by the Hon'ble Five Judge Bench in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (3) SCC 92 clarified wherein, it is been held that merely because, the name of the petitioners are mentioned in the FIR and also the statement witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is not open to the Court to relied upon the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has independent witness, the same only be corroborating material. Further, the standard of evidence required for exercising the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. viz. strong and cogent evidence in the absence of suggestive and co-gent evidence merely because of any assertion of statement of PW-1 in the witnesses box during the Trial, the Court cannot exercise the power to add any accused in the on going trial, because the power to be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person and not casual and cavalier manner. In respect of the word “evidence” is required to be brought before the Court Trial. The material evidence collected by the investigation officer at the state of enquiry may be utilized only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded and examined from the trial by the Court to invoke the power. In respect of the word “evidence” is required to be brought before the Court Trial. The material evidence collected by the investigation officer at the state of enquiry may be utilized only for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded and examined from the trial by the Court to invoke the power. 17. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would rely upon the following judgments reported in: (a) Mani Pushpak Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, 2019 (9) SCC 805 (b) Dev Wati and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2019 (4) SCC 329 (c) Periyasami and Others vs. S. Nallasamy, 2019 (2) TNLR 523 (SC) 18. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that in FIR, the proposed accused names have been mentioned, one of the accused has spoken about statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also stated that the proposed accused have not proved their case and such observation made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions. 19. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in adding parties in a Sessions Case after deleted in the charge-sheet and also taking note of the fact that both the proposed accused/revision petitioners herein were accompanied with Advocate Commissioner appointed for the Civil Suit in O.S. No. 86 of 2012 also assumes significance and the Civil Suit has also pending between the parties. 20. It remains to be stated that on filing of the charge-sheet necessary notice has been given to the party, he has not filed any protest petition in dropping the accused who are originally named in FIR. Even after these proposed parties are dropped from the charge-sheet also assumes significance. 21. Hence, this Court finds that the nature of the allegations and statements available on record does not satisfy the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for adding any person as an accused in the Sessions Case to face the trial and hence, the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, is liable to be set aside. 22. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Crl. 22. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, in Crl. M.P. No. 1357 of 2017 in S.C. No. 3 of 2013, dated 04.06.2018, is hereby set aside and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, is directed to proceed Sessions Case with the available witnesses and dispose of the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.