ORDER Sanjay Dwivedi, J. - Looking to the issue involved in the matter, it was heard and this day it is pronounced. 2. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of CrP.C. challenging the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Special Court (MP/MLA) Gwalior in Case No.9/2022SCPPS. 3. By the impugned order, the trial Court has decided an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of CrPC requesting therein that in view of the statement of complainant Narendra Singh Parmar and Virendra Kumar Gupta, recorded before and after charge, Rajendra Bharti and Rakesh Bharti, who have played significant role in the alleged crime should be made accused. It was also requested in the application that Rghuveer Sharan Prajapati S/o. Ramdas Prajapati be also made accused and summons be issued to them. 4. The court after considering the statement of Narendra Singh Parmar, Virendra Kumar Gupta and Raghuveer Sharan Prajapti arrived at a conclusion that Rakesh Bharti had no role to play and he was not required to be incriminated and as such application in respect of Rakesh Bharti was rejected. However, the court has found that on the basis of evidence and material produced before, there was involvement of Raghuveer Sharan Prajati in the crime registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and as such he should also be tried along with accused Rajendra Bharti. The application of Section 319 was accordingly allowed in respect of present applicant and summons issued to him for appearance and to face the trial. 5. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 witness cannot be made accused and according to him the applicant was witness and his statement was recorded as Witness No.3, therefore, impugned order making him accused is liable to be set aside. To reinforce, he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in re R. Dineshkumar alias Deena v. State represented by Inspector of Police and another (2015) 7 SCC 497 . Shri Khare also submitted that there is settlement between the parties as per the order of the National Consumer Forum and therefore the applicant cannot be made accused. 6. To reinforce, he placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in re R. Dineshkumar alias Deena v. State represented by Inspector of Police and another (2015) 7 SCC 497 . Shri Khare also submitted that there is settlement between the parties as per the order of the National Consumer Forum and therefore the applicant cannot be made accused. 6. In contrast, Shri Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/objector submitted that settlement before the National Consumer Forum was with respect to civil liability, but that does not mean that the said settlement gives any right for making the accused free from criminal act. He also submitted that Section 132 of Evidence Act and the judgment relied upon on behalf of the applicant are not applicable for the reason that the said Section provides that the witness cannot be made accused on the basis of his statement adduced by him during the trial. He submitted that present complaint case is at the stage of enquiry and the applicant has given his statement as PW-3. He has also been cross-examined, therefore, Section 132 is not attracted. He placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2023) 7 SCC 344 and submitted that the order passed by the Court allowing the application is absolutely perfect and does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival parties and meticulously perused the documents available on record. 8. Indeed, the applicant has given statement before charge in the complaint case. He has not been cross-examined. Here, I find it apposite to quote Section 132 of Evidence Act, which read as under:- "132. 7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival parties and meticulously perused the documents available on record. 8. Indeed, the applicant has given statement before charge in the complaint case. He has not been cross-examined. Here, I find it apposite to quote Section 132 of Evidence Act, which read as under:- "132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate.-A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind: Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer." From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear the a witness cannot be excused if he denies to answer any question which can make him accused. Meaning thereby, if any question is put to witness and answer of that question, if makes him accused and it is denied to answer, the said witness can be made accused. In the present case, there is no such situation existing. From perusal of the order of trial Court, it is seen that the Court has not made the applicant as accused only on the basis of his statement but also took note of statements of witnesses namely Narendra Singh, Shivpal Ahirwar, Virendra Kumar Gupta and Raghuveer Sharan Prajapati (applicant) and arrived at a conclusion that the applicant was also involved in the offence. Had it been a case in which only on the basis of statement of applicant and as per the situation as has been dealt with in Section 132 of Evidence Act, the applicant was made accused then only he can get the benefit of that provision and order can be set aside. But, situation in the case at hand is quite different and no benefit can be provided to the applicant. 9. But, situation in the case at hand is quite different and no benefit can be provided to the applicant. 9. The decision in re R. Dineshkumar (supra), placed reliance by Shri Khare, is not applicable here for the reason that stage which has been considered by the Supreme Court is not existing in the case at hand inasmuch as witness has not been compelled to answer any specific question and therefore, the benefit of provisions of Section 132 is unavailable to the applicant. 10. Quite apart, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is also seen that the court has exercised its discretion provided under Section 319 of CrPC and unless it is established that the discretion has not been exercised judiciously, then only interference can be made, otherwise not. The Supreme Court in re Jitendra Nath Mishra (supra) has observed as under:- "10. Section 319, Cr. PC, which envisages a discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised by the court qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as an accused in the charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by section 319, Cr. PC, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction." Further, the Supreme has also taken a view with regard to Section 319 of CrPC and dealt with its object in re Hardeep Singh (supra) and observed as under:- "Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The entire effort, therefore, is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished. This is also a part of fair trial and in order to achieve this very end that the legislature thought of incorporation provisions of Section 319 crPC. It is with the said object in mind that a constructive and purposive interpretation should be adopted that advances the cause of justice and does not dilute the intention of the statute conferring power on the court to carry out the abovementioned avowed objection and purpose to try the person to the satisfaction of the court as an accomplice in the commission of the offence that is the subject-matter of trial." 11. In view of the legal position and also the factual matrix of the case at hand, I find nothing wrong done by the Court while issuing summons to applicant exercising discretion under Section 319 of CrPC. 12. In view of the legal position and also the factual matrix of the case at hand, I find nothing wrong done by the Court while issuing summons to applicant exercising discretion under Section 319 of CrPC. 12. The criminal revision being sans substance, is hereby dismissed.