JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Suraj Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 22.01.2011 passed in S.C. No.33 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj, whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj. 3. On the application of the informant-opposite party no.2, the case was registered alleging therein that on 16.06.2009 at about 12:00 noon, the accused persons namely Ballu Ansari, Azad Ansari, Sajjad Ansari, Tohid Ansari, Pawan Panjabi, Sonu Paswan and Manoj Paswan have caught younger brother of the informant namely Md. Saiyad Ansari with intention to kill him. In the meantime, the accused Ballu Ansari had fired bullet on the head of Saiyad Ansari in the result of which he died at the spot near the palm tree. On hulla, another younger brother of the informant and Mohalla people reached at the place of occurrence. After seeing them, accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. It was further alleged that the entire occurrence occurred in their presence. The reason behind this case is that dish wire of the deceased was crossed over the roof of the accused Ballu Ansari and accused Ballu Ansari had regularly used to cut this dish wire, due to which the above named accused persons had committed murder of the deceased Saiyad Ansari. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been called upon to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the application of the informant. He further submits that nothing cogent has come against the petitioner and in spite of that the petitioner was called upon. He also submits that there is no allegation of firing against the petitioner rather the same has been alleged against one Ballu Ansari. The name of the petitioner has been simply mentioned in the FIR with ulterior motive. He submits that in that view of the matter, at the initial stage the learned court has not taken cognizance against the petitioner, however on the application of the informant, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial. The name of the petitioner has been simply mentioned in the FIR with ulterior motive. He submits that in that view of the matter, at the initial stage the learned court has not taken cognizance against the petitioner, however on the application of the informant, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial. He also submits that so far as other accused persons are concerned, they have faced the trial and vide judgment dated 29.01.2011 itself, they have been acquitted by the learned court. He submits that in absence of any material against the petitioner, he has been called upon to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court on the application of the informant has called upon the petitioner to face the trial. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order. 6. The Court has gone through the judgment by which the other accused persons have been acquitted and finds that in the said judgment also, nothing has come against this petitioner. On the application filed by the informant, the learned court has called upon the petitioner to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the impugned order, it has not been discussed who are the witnesses who have taken the name of the petitioner, which suggests that without any cogent reason, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial. 7. Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued and the said Section is required to be applied with circumspection. Recently, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab; [ (2023) 1 SCC 289 ] has considered Section 319 Cr.P.C. and parameters of the provision has been discussed. Paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “39.(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order? Paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: “39.(I) Whether the trial court has the power under Section for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order? The power under Section is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable. 40.(II) Whether the trial court has the power under Section for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial? The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split-up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion. 41.(III) What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319CrPC? 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. 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. 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 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 319 CrPC, 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. 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.” 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to the conclusion that in absence of any cogent reason, the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial, however the other accused persons have been acquitted by the learned court. In that view of the matter, the order dated 22.01.2011 passed in S.C. No.33 of 2010, pending in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahibganj is quashed. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.