JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.no.3. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed in C-II Official Complaint Case No.109 of 2000 by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby he has been pleased to reject the petition dated 28.07.2011 filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. 3. Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 30.11.1978 the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 and 3 entered into an agreement for sale of 8 katha of land of 17 Katha 3 chhataks comprising of sub-plot 595-I and 595-II of Hinoo, Ranchi-2. He further submits that on 27.01.1981 the O.P.No.2 and 3 filed Title Suit No.125 of 1981 for specific performance of contract in terms of the agreement dated 30.11.1978 but no sketch map of the suit land was filed along with the plaint as required under Order VII Rule 3 of the C.P.C. He further submits that learned Additional Sub Judge, Ranchi has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of O.P.No.2 and 3 by judgment dated 18.10.1982. On 24.01.1983 the O.P.Nos.2 and 3 who are decree holders in Execution Case No.1/83(A) filed the case for execution of the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1982, wherein the delivery of possession was passed. Aggrieved with that, the petitioner-judgment debtor preferred an appeal being F.A.No.27 of 1983(R) before the High Court which was dismissed by order dated 4.4.1990. The order dated 4.4.1990 passed in F.A. No. 27 of 1993(R) was challenged in L.P.A. No.27 of 1990(R) which was dismissed by the order dated 17.10.1990. On 23.11.1995 the petitioner judgment-debtor filed S.L.P. No.5061 of 1991 and after grant of leave the same was registered as Civil Appeal No.315 of 1992 and by order dated 23.11.1995 the same was dismissed. A review petition was filed which was rejected on 7.2.1996. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on the aforesaid background on 28.7.2011 for summoning Binita Minj, Bench Clerk to face trial by the accused person which was dismissed by order dated 15.11.2009. A review petition was filed which was rejected on 7.2.1996. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a petition under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on the aforesaid background on 28.7.2011 for summoning Binita Minj, Bench Clerk to face trial by the accused person which was dismissed by order dated 15.11.2009. He submits that the learned trial court has rejected the petition under section 319 of the Cr.P.C in a routine manner and there is no consideration on the spirit of section 319 Cr.P.C. He submits that during the evidence of witnesses her name has come. On this ground, he submits that the interim order may kindly be quashed and the petition of the petitioner under section 319 Cr.P.C may kindly be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.3 submits that criteria of section 319 of Cr.P.C has not been satisfied and the learned court has rightly rejected the petition. He further submits that the order was passed twelve years back. He further submits that only for delaying tactics the present petition was filed which was rightly rejected. This is not a case of calling any person under section 319 Cr.PC. 5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that in earlier litigation the case has been travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, the complaint case was filed on the basis that there was some forgery in the concerned file of the trial court and for the same the trial is going on. During pendency of the trial, this petition has been filed. The learned trial court by a reasoned order dismissed the said petition considering that the case is an old case of 2000 which required to be expeditiously disposed of. Both the accused are also senior citizens aged about 70 years and one has already died during pendency of the present Cr. M.P. The learned court has further considered that if the petition is allowed the trial will start afresh once again in a denovo manner which unnecessarily delay the case. Both the accused are also senior citizens aged about 70 years and one has already died during pendency of the present Cr. M.P. The learned court has further considered that if the petition is allowed the trial will start afresh once again in a denovo manner which unnecessarily delay the case. The learned trial court further hold that in every case where any witness has deposed against any witness not arrayed as an accused in that case he is not required to unnecessarily summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C and denovo trial may not be always in the interest of justice. The learned court has further held that power under section 319 Cr.P.C is to be used sparingly and if it is so, which has to be invoked to indicate that there is possible conviction. In this background, he has dismissed the petition. Recently section 319 Cr.PC was the subject matter before the Five-Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab”, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 289 wherein at paragraph no.41 the guidelines have been framed for deciding the petition under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which is quoted below: “41.1. If the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage. 41.2. The court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon. 41.3. If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under Section 319CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case. 41.4. If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately. 41.5. If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. 41.6. 41.5. If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. 41.6. If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with. 41.7. If the proceeding paused as in para 41.1 above, is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted, and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case. 41.8. If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split-up (bifurcated) trial. 41.9. If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under Section 319CrPC, the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for re-hearing. 41.10. On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly. 41.11. Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held. 41.12. If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier: (a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused. (b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.” 6. In view of the power under section 319 Cr.P.C it is required to be exercised with circumspection. (b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.” 6. In view of the power under section 319 Cr.P.C it is required to be exercised with circumspection. There is no doubt that even when a person is not named in the charge sheet as an accused person the trial court has adequate power to summon such un-named person, however, that power is required to be exercised with caution and care. The learned trial court after giving proper reason has been pleased to reject the petition. The Court comes to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.No.372 of 2012 is dismissed. 8. Pending petition also stands dismissed accordingly.