ORDER : P.Velmurugan, J. Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records relating to the order dated 09.09.2022 made in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2019 in C.C.No.237 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur now transferred and pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and set aside the same as illegal. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, in Crl.M.P.No.2338 of 2019, wherein the learned Magistrate, upon considering the petition filed by the prosecution, invoked Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and directed the summoning of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, the sitting MLA of Tiruchendur, as an additional accused in Crime No.520 of 2009. 2. The facts, as culled from the records, reveal the following:- 2.1. The defacto complainant, Mr.Damodaran, a member of the ADMK party, resides at Peyanvilai. Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, a member of the DMK party, is the sitting MLA of the Tiruchendur constituency. In December 2009, a by-election was announced for the Tiruchendur constituency following a vacancy. On the evening of 06.12.2009, at around 8: 00 p.m., the defacto complainant, along with his associates Arasaguru, Sivaprakash, and Suresh Kumar, were engaged in canvassing at the ADMK election booth at Peyanvilai. At that time, Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, along with certain other individuals, arrived at the booth to canvass votes for the DMK, creating a confrontation with the defacto complainant and his group. The defacto complainant, in turn, displayed signs encouraging voters to support ADMK, leading to a commotion and a physical altercation. 2.2. According to the defacto complainant, Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, instigated the assault by engaging the accused, who were allegedly armed with deadly weapons, to attack him and his associates, and cause damage to their election booth. The defacto complainant immediately approached the Arumuganeri Police Station, where a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 323, 324, and 506(ii) IPC, against Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, and 15 other individuals. However, following investigation, the name of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan was removed from the police report. 2.3. The defacto complainant immediately approached the Arumuganeri Police Station, where a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 323, 324, and 506(ii) IPC, against Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, and 15 other individuals. However, following investigation, the name of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan was removed from the police report. 2.3. Subsequently, the prosecution, based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., seeking the inclusion of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan as an additional accused, asserting that there was sufficient evidence to implicate him in the commission of the offense. 2.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the materials on record, allowed the petition in Crl.M.No.2338 of 2019 in C.C.No.237 of 2010 on 09.09.2022 and ordered the summoning of Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan as an additional accused. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2022, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 4. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been added as one of the accused by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have considered that a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed without strong, cogent, and valid material and allowing such a petition casually would ultimately affect the rights of the other accused who are already facing trial. Furthermore, the fresh summoning of the accused would result in an unnecessary delay in the trial. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, before passing the order to implead the petitioner as an accused, the petitioner was not put on notice about the filing of the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and was not given an opportunity to be heard. It is necessary that, before being added as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., a person must be given an opportunity of hearing. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar and others [ 2015 9 SCC 244 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., he must necessarily be heard before being so added as an accused. State of Bihar and others [ 2015 9 SCC 244 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that when a person is added as an accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., he must necessarily be heard before being so added as an accused. In this case, the petitioner was not given notice and was not heard before the order in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2019 was passed. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the materials available are not sufficient to add the petitioner as one of the accused in this case, and there should be strong material to add any person as an accused in a criminal case. A person cannot simply be added as an accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate, especially after filing of the charge sheet, filing of charges, and recording of evidence. The materials placed before the learned Magistrate were not sufficient, when examined in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for summoning an additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously contends that there is no provision for discharge available to the accused, and that the trial Court must put the proposed accused on notice and, after providing sufficient opportunity, decide the petition on its merits. As such, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate does not stand scrutiny in the eye of the law and hence, prayed to set aside the order passed of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 09.09.2022. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: (i) Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and another [ (2014) 3 SCC 92 ] (ii) Vikas Rathi Vs.The State of U.P. & Anr.[2023 Livelaw (SC) 172] (iii) Shankar & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors [( 2024 4 Supreme 271 ] (iv) Naveen Vs. State of Haryana and Others [(2023) 1 SCC (Crl) 393] (v) Brijendra Singh and others [2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 321 (SC)] (vi) Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2019 (6) CTC 106 ] (vii) Sarbjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 141] (viii) Prasanna Das and another Vs. State of Orissa [ (2004) 13 SCC 30 ] (ix) Harinarayan G.Bajaj Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2019 (6) CTC 106 ] (vii) Sarbjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 141] (viii) Prasanna Das and another Vs. State of Orissa [ (2004) 13 SCC 30 ] (ix) Harinarayan G.Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [ (2010) 11 SCC 520 ] (x) Crl.R.C.No.564 of 2016 [06.09.2022] (xi) N.Manogar & Anr. The Inspector of Police & Ors. [(Crl.)No.(s).8696 of 2011] 6. Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the first respondent-Police, submits that there was prima facie material against the petitioner. Although the petitioner's name was mentioned in the FIR and a report was filed against the petitioner after the investigation, the petitioner's name was subsequently deleted from the police report. Subsequently, the first respondent-Police filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to implead the petitioner as an accused in the case, based on the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3, which implicated the petitioner as the real accused at the time of the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is conferred on the Court to ensure that justice is done and that all those guilty of an offence are brought to book. In this case, although the petitioner was the real accused at the time of the offence, his name was deleted from the police report. As a result, the first respondent-Police filed the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking the issuance of summons to the petitioner as an accused. The learned Magistrate, after considering all the facts, particularly the evidence adduced by P.W.1 to P.W.3, concluded that there was sufficient material against the petitioner to warrant his addition to the criminal case and the learned Magistrate ordered the issuance of summons to the petitioner. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) prays for the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Mr.Calvin Jones, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 9 (the de facto complainants), submits that, at the instance of the petitioner, who only directed the accused persons to attack respondents 6 to 9, the attack resulted in them being severely injured and hospitalized. 7. Mr.Calvin Jones, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 9 (the de facto complainants), submits that, at the instance of the petitioner, who only directed the accused persons to attack respondents 6 to 9, the attack resulted in them being severely injured and hospitalized. The learned counsel further submits that immediately after the occurrence, the complainants rushed to the police station, and upon receiving their complaint, the first respondent (Police) registered a case against the petitioner and 15 others in Crime No.520 of 2009 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 323, 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC. However, at the time of filing the police report, the petitioner's name was omitted. The learned counsel further submits that subsequently, the first respondent-Police filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., and the learned Judicial Magistrate, after considering the facts and the evidence adduced by the parties, rightly allowed the petition, added the petitioner as an accused, and issued summons. Hence, the learned counsel prays for the dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the name of the petitioner was added as an accused at the time of the registration of the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 427, 323, 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC in Crime No.520 of 2009, based on the complaint made by the defacto complainant on 06.12.2009, for an occurrence that had taken place on the same date at around 6.00 p.m. It is also not in dispute that, at the time of the registration of the F.I.R., the name of the petitioner, along with 15 others, was included. However, at the time of filing the police report, the name of the petitioner, which was mentioned in the first information report, was deleted. Subsequently, at the instance of the first respondent (Police), they filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner and, therefore, added him as a party to the criminal case and issued summons. 10. Subsequently, at the instance of the first respondent (Police), they filed a petition under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner and, therefore, added him as a party to the criminal case and issued summons. 10. The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The next contention is that the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have seen that the petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed without any strong, cogent, and valid materials. 11. Before going into the issues, it is necessary to refer to Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- "319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) 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. .... (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an Accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. A perusal of the above Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, it is crystal clear that the power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the Accused. 12. 12. Now, coming to the first point of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner should be given prior notice before summoning, it is to be noted that Section 319 of Cr.P.C. does not explicitly provide for the issuance of notice to the individual who is sought to be added as an accused before passing an order under this section. As per the provision, the court has the power to proceed against any person who appears to be guilty of an offence during the course of an inquiry or trial, based on the evidence presented. Considering the language of Section 319, the court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be put on notice before the order is passed. The power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence is derived from the evidence and the proceedings during the trial or inquiry. Therefore, there is no procedural requirement for the court to issue a notice or summon the individual before making a decision under this section. Hence, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing before the passing of the order, does not find support under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the contention of the learned senior Counsel is rejected. 13. Before addressing the second issue, it is pertinent to note the numerous judgments cited by the learned senior counsel. There is no quarrel over these citations, and each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the case of Hardheep Singh v. State of Punjab [ 2014 (3) SCC 92 ], it was held that: "The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if there is strong and cogent evidence against the person to be added as an accused. The evidence must be such that it leads to a conclusion that the person has committed an offence and it is just and proper to try him along with the already arraigned accused. This power is exceptional and should be used sparingly, only in cases where the evidence is compelling." It is pertinent to refer to one of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel in A.K. Sikri & Ashok Bhushan [2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 321 (SC)], where the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh's case were broadly elaborated. This power is exceptional and should be used sparingly, only in cases where the evidence is compelling." It is pertinent to refer to one of the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel in A.K. Sikri & Ashok Bhushan [2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 321 (SC)], where the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh's case were broadly elaborated. It would be useful to refer the following paras:- 9. Powers of the Court to proceed Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure even against those persons who are not arraigned as accused, cannot be disputed. This provision is meant to achieve the objective that real culprit should not get away unpunished. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., MANU/SC/0025/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 92 , explained the aforesaid purpose behind this provision in the following manner: 8. The constitutional mandate under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India provides a protective umbrella for the smooth administration of justice making adequate provisions to ensure a fair and efficacious trial so that the Accused does not get prejudiced after the law has been put into motion to try him for the offence but at the same time also gives equal protection to victims and to society at large to ensure that the guilty does not get away from the clutches of law. For the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly, the law was appropriately codified and modified by the legislature under Code of Criminal Procedure indicating as to how the courts should proceed in order to ultimately find out the truth so that an innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law. It is these ideals as enshrined under the Constitution and our laws that have led to several decisions, whereby innovating methods and progressive tools have been forged to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty does not go unpunished. .... 12. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. .... 12. Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. 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 question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure? ..... 19. The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the Rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an Accused makes efforts at times to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry even though he may be connected with the commission of the offence. 10. It also goes without saying that Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, which is an enabling provision empowering the Court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person, not being an accused, can be exercised at any time after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of the judgment, except during the stage of Section 207/208 Code of Criminal Procedure, the committal etc., which is only a pre-trial stage intended to put the process into motion. 11. In Hardeep Singh's case, the Constitution Bench has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. 11. In Hardeep Singh's case, the Constitution Bench has also settled the controversy on the issue as to whether the word 'evidence' used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and indicates the evidence collected during investigation or the word 'evidence' is limited to the evidence recorded during trial. It is held that it is that material, after cognizance is taken by the Court, that is available to it while making an inquiry into or trying an offence, which the court can utilise or take into consideration for supporting reasons to summon any person on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court. The word 'evidence' has to be understood in its wider sense, both at the stage of trial and even at the stage of inquiry. It means that the power to proceed against any person after summoning him can be exercised on the basis of any such material as brought forth before it. At the same time, this Court cautioned that the duty and obligation of the Court becomes more onerous to invoke such powers consciously on such material after evidence has been led during trial. The Court also clarified that 'evidence' Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure could even be examinationin- chief and the Court is not required to wait till such evidence is tested on cross-examination, as it is the satisfaction of the Court which can be gathered from the reasons recorded by the Court in respect of complicity of some other person(s) not facing trial in the offence. 12. The moot question, however, is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the powers Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and the related question is as to in what situations this power should be exercised in respect of a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. These two aspects were also specifically dealt with by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's case and answered in the following manner: 95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan [ MANU/SC/0894/2013 : (2014) 3 SCC 321 ], held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be "arrested" or "summoned", as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the Accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned Accused persons. .... ..... 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". 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. (emphasis supplied) 13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh's case may be recapitulated: Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during the trial, i.e., before the conclusion of trial, to summon any person as an Accused and face the trial in the ongoing case, once the trial court finds that there is some 'evidence' against such a person on the basis of which evidence it can be gathered that he appears to be guilty of offence. The 'evidence' herein means the material that is brought before the Court during trial. Insofar as the material/evidence collected by the IO at the stage of inquiry is concerned, it can be utilised for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the Court to invoke the power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross-examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. However, since it is a discretionary power given to the Court Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrants. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom chargesheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that each case must be assessed on its facts and merits, ensuring that the use of Section 319 is justified by strong evidence. Further, in the cases referred by the learned senior counsel in the case of Naveen Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) and Shankar and others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the judgment referred to in Hardeep Singh's case, and held that the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh's case has given a caution that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in such cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The crucial test to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to the extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. 14. In the above backdrop, this Court will now come to point No.2 raised in this case. At the risk of repetition, the Constitution Bench has given a caution that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extraordinary power that should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant, and only where strong and cogent evidence emerges against a person from the evidence led before the Court. Such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 15. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court examines the facts of the instant case. It is evident that the present incident is based on direct evidence. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, Mr.Damodaran, resides in Peyanvilai and belongs to the AIADMK political party. Mr. Anitha Radhakrishnan, a sitting MLA of the Tiruchendur Legislative Assembly, belongs to the DMK political party. In 2009, the Election Commission of Tamil Nadu announced a by-election for the Tiruchendur constituency due to a vacancy. On 06.12.2009, at the ADMK Election Booth in Peyanvilai, Mr.Suresh Kumar was canvassing. Mr. Anitha Radhakrishnan, a sitting MLA of the Tiruchendur Legislative Assembly, belongs to the DMK political party. In 2009, the Election Commission of Tamil Nadu announced a by-election for the Tiruchendur constituency due to a vacancy. On 06.12.2009, at the ADMK Election Booth in Peyanvilai, Mr.Suresh Kumar was canvassing. At that time, Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, and some other identified persons arrived at the location to gather votes for the DMK from the de facto complainant and others. The de facto complainant showed signs against Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, urging votes for the ADMK. As a result, a melee and commotion arose. Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, allegedly induced and engaged the other accused to commit an assault and cause damage to the de facto complainant and their election booth. Due to the inducement from Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, the accused, armed with deadly weapons, used filthy language and assaulted the de facto complainant and others present with him in his office. On the same day, around 09: 00 p.m., the de facto complainant rushed to the Arumuganeri Police Station and filed a complaint against Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, and other aggressors, requesting proper action. Mr.Vaigunda Perumal, the Head Constable in charge of the Arumuganeri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.520 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 296(b), 427, 323, 324, 506(ii) of IPC against Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan, MLA, and 15 others. 16. P.W.1 Damodaran, during the course of his chief examination, deposed that he resides in Peiyanvilai and runs a grocery shop. He does not know the accused Ramesh, Anthony Raj, Santhanaraj, and Balakrishnan, but he knows Suresh. On 06.12.2009, at about 6 p.m., while he was sitting at the Peiyanvilai election booth, Anitha Radhakrishnan came there seeking votes and asked him to vote for the DMK. When Mr.Anitha Radhakrishnan saw them sitting there, he sent 4 to 5 persons to attack them with cricket stumps. These persons attacked him, causing an injury to his forehead. He was immediately admitted to Kayalpattinam Government Hospital and later referred to Shankar Hospital for further treatment. The police came to the hospital, enquired about the incident, and he wrote a police complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. 17. P.W.2 Arasagru deposed that he was living in Peiyanvilai and held the post of Secretary of ADMK. He knows the accused. He was immediately admitted to Kayalpattinam Government Hospital and later referred to Shankar Hospital for further treatment. The police came to the hospital, enquired about the incident, and he wrote a police complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. 17. P.W.2 Arasagru deposed that he was living in Peiyanvilai and held the post of Secretary of ADMK. He knows the accused. In 2009, during the bye-election in the Tiruchendur constituency, they had an office in the fourth ward on behalf of ADMK, with government permission. While at the spot, DMK candidate Anitha Radhakrishnan came in front of their office and, after seeing them, asked for votes for the DMK. Radakrishnan @ Krishnan, who was with them, showed the picture of the double leaf and asked for votes. Suddenly, Anitha Radhakrishnan instructed hooligans to attack them. The accused, 4 to 5 persons, came with cricket stumps, beating him, P.W.1 Damodaran, Mrugesan, and Sivaprakash, causing injuries. After the attack, they ran away. As a result, he suffered injuries to the left back side of his head and hip, while P.W.1 Damodaran got injured on his forehead. Several others were injured all over their bodies. Their party members took them to Kayalpatinam Government Hospital, where the police came and enquired. They gave statements to the police, but since the complaint was against the ruling party, the police initially refused to take any complaint. Party leaders Sengottaiyan and Kamaraj pressured the police to file the First Information Report. However, the police did not include the name of Anitha Radhakrishnan while filing the final report. While he was in the hospital, drowsy state, they brought him to the police station, prepared a statement themselves, and asked him to sign it, which he refused. While he was receiving treatment at Shankar Hospital, P.W.1 gave a complaint, and the police enquired him there. 18. P.W.3 Sivaprakash deposed that he resides in Peiyanvilai, where he runs a furniture shop. During the occurrence, he held the post of Youth Secretary. He knows P.W.1 and P.W.2 but does not know the accused. In 2009, during the bye-election in the Tiruchendur constituency, while they were sitting in the ADMK Office, DMK candidate Anitha Radhakrishnan came there and asked for votes for the DMK. Anitha Radhakrishnan then instructed hooligans to attack them. The accused, 4 to 5 persons, came and attacked them. He knows P.W.1 and P.W.2 but does not know the accused. In 2009, during the bye-election in the Tiruchendur constituency, while they were sitting in the ADMK Office, DMK candidate Anitha Radhakrishnan came there and asked for votes for the DMK. Anitha Radhakrishnan then instructed hooligans to attack them. The accused, 4 to 5 persons, came and attacked them. P.W.1 and P.W.2 got injured, and he also got injured on his leg. He was admitted to Kayalpattinam Government Hospital and, after receiving treatment as an outpatient, he went home. P.W.1 and P.W.2 sustained head injuries. P.W.2 was injured on the back of his head, and P.W.1 was injured on his forehead. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were first admitted to Kayalpattinam Government Hospital, where they gave the first information report, and were later admitted to Aathur Hospital for further treatment. He further depose that the police did not enquire him. 19. The evidence adduced by P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 clearly shows prima facie satisfaction against Anitha Radhakrishnan for the petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. P.W.1 Damodaran testified that he was attacked by individuals sent by Anitha Radhakrishnan, resulting in injuries that required hospital treatment. P.W.2 Arasagru corroborated this by stating that Anitha Radhakrishnan instructed hooligans to attack them, leading to multiple injuries among the victims. P.W.3 Sivaprakash also confirmed the attack and the injuries sustained by himself and others. In this case, strong and cogent evidence is available, particularly in the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.3, which clearly reveals the role played by the petitioner. P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are eyewitnesses, have provided clear evidence that the petitioner was present at the scene and also instigated the other accused to attack. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the court to proceed against any person, not being an accused, if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence for which they could be tried together with the accused. Upon proper appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found strong prima facie materials to implead the petitioner as an accused and issued summons accordingly for the petitioner to be tried along with the other accused. 20. The principles established in the Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab case, [ 2014 (3) SCC 92 ], support this action. Upon proper appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found strong prima facie materials to implead the petitioner as an accused and issued summons accordingly for the petitioner to be tried along with the other accused. 20. The principles established in the Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab case, [ 2014 (3) SCC 92 ], support this action. In Hardeep Singh's, it was held that the power under Section 319 should be exercised only where strong and cogent evidence emerges against a person from the evidence led before the court and not in a casual or cavalier manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that this power is discretionary and extraordinary, meant to ensure that the real offender does not escape punishment. In this case, the evidence from P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 clearly establishes a prima facie case against Anitha Radhakrishnan, justifying the invocation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 21. It is also worth mentioning that though the petitioner's name was included initially in the FIR, it was deleted when the final report was filed. However, when the first respondent-Police filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the trial court ordered that if sufficient material is available against a person, there is no need for additional investigation. Further, if sufficient materials are available to charge the person through witnesses, the person can be made an accused, and summons may be issued. 22. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order, and thus, this criminal revision case is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, is confirmed. Since the case has now been transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on summons. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi, is directed to issue summons to the petitioner, and upon the petitioner’s appearance, serve copies of the documents and frame necessary charges against the petitioner, and proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner can present all his defenses during the trial. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.