JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Surya Prakash Singh as well as Sri Bipin Kumar Tiwari, who have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Ankit Verma & Ranvijay Singh Patel, opposite parties no.2 & 3 respectively. Said Vakalatnamas are taken on record. 2. In view of the proposed order, notices to private opposite parties are dispensed with. 3. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Court No. 04, Faizabad in S.T. No. 212/2021 (State vs Ram Shankar and Others) relating to Case Crime No. 223/2020, Police Station - Maharganj, District-Faizabad as contained as Annexure No. 01 of the present petition. It is further prayed that the trial court may kindly be directed to summon the opposite party No. 02 to 06 of this petition under section 319 Cr.P.C. as accused in S.T. No. 212/2021(State vs Ram Shankar and Others) relating to Case Crime No. 223/2020, Police Station Maharganj, District-Faizabad. It is also prayed that operation and implementation of order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Court No. 04, Faizabad vide S.T. No. 212/2021 (State vs Ram Shankar and Others) relating to Police Station - Maharganj, District-Faizabad may kindly be stayed during pendency of this petition. Any other order or direction may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." 4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the present petitioner had sustained serious injuries at the time of incident in question. He has further submitted that one application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed (Annexure No.4) by one Dharmendra Kumar Singh, who had intimated the police on behalf of the petitioner regarding the incident in question as the petitioner was not in a position to apprise the police about the incident in question. He has further submitted that one application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed (Annexure No.4) by one Dharmendra Kumar Singh, who had intimated the police on behalf of the petitioner regarding the incident in question as the petitioner was not in a position to apprise the police about the incident in question. In the aforesaid application, the applicant of that application, namely, Dharmendra Kumar Singh has stated that though Ankit, Ranvijay Patel, Ramsukh alias Sukhram, Manish and Ajay were amongst the assailants and in the FIR, their names have been indicated, but by filing charge sheet, their names have been deleted and charge sheet has been filed against other accused persons. It has been further stated in such application that Dharmendra Kumar Singh and two other witnesses have been examined. He has further submitted that in the chief-examination of those witnesses, names of above named accused persons have been indicated against whom the charge sheet has not been filed, therefore, the specific request has been made before the court concerned that by invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. accused Ankit, Ranvijay Patel, Ramsukh alias Sukhram, Manish and Ajay be summoned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the present petitioner is not only the informant but is an injured person and he has not been examined by the court concerned till date. In the chief-examination of one injured witness Shivam, names of above named accused persons have been indicated, however, during cross-examination, clear version has not come. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in re; Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2023 SC 1736 , wherein the Apex Court in para-26 observed as under:- "26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded." 6. In the aforesaid para, the Apex Court has observed that when the evidence of an injured eye witness is to be appreciated, some relevant facts should be appreciated and if it is found that the injuries sustained in the incident in question, evidence of such injured witness would have greater evidentiary value. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 may be set aside and direction may be issued to the court concerned to summon the accused persons, namely, Ankit, Ranvijay Patel, Ramsukh alias Sukhram, Manish and Ajay. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated that the present petitioner has got no locus to file this petition inasmuch as he had not filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, rather such application was filed one Dharmendra Kumar Singh. He has also stated that the learned court concerned has passed speaking and reasoned order rejecting such application and powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are invoked sparingly, therefore, this petition may be dismissed as there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.09.2023. He has also stated that the learned court concerned has passed speaking and reasoned order rejecting such application and powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are invoked sparingly, therefore, this petition may be dismissed as there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.09.2023. Learned counsels for opposite parties no.2 & 3 have placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court dated 19.11.2020 in re; Kanchhid Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, Application U/S 482 No.12491 of 2020, wherein this Court has held that for invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the court concerned must be careful and unless and until the specific material/ evidence is not available on the record/ pleadings, such power should not be invoked inasmuch as power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is on high pedestal. 8. Ms. Nushrat Jahan, learned A.G.A. has stated that this is a settled law of the Apex Court in re; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 , Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 337 and Yashodhan Singh and Others V. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 108 , to the effect that while considering and disposing of the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., learned trial court must consider all allegations and evidences on record and unless and until the court finds relevant material/ evidence to summon the persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C., those persons should not be summoned in a cursory manner inasmuch as the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is on high pedestal. Learned A.G.A. has stated that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 does not appear to be appropriate inasmuch as the request of the injured person, who is informant also, may not be turned down in a cursory manner, though the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are invoked sparingly. 9. The Apex Court in re; Hardeep Singh (supra) has held that if the trial court is convinced on the basis of chief-examination, it may summon the accused persons without going into the aspects of cross-examination. 10. 9. The Apex Court in re; Hardeep Singh (supra) has held that if the trial court is convinced on the basis of chief-examination, it may summon the accused persons without going into the aspects of cross-examination. 10. In re; Yashodhan Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that if the learned trial court finds relevant material/ evidence, it can invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. even if such person/persons is/are not named in the FIR or not named in the charge sheet or has/ have been discharged before framing of the charges. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find that while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court has not assigned specific reason and has not recorded their subjective satisfaction inasmuch as after considering the facts and circumstances, documents of the parties and referring the various judgments of the Constitutional Courts, such application has been rejected only for the reason that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C are invoked sparingly. This is a trite law that while rejecting an application, the court concerned must pass speaking and reasoned order so that it could be understood that the court concerned has applied its judicious mind, therefore, for this reason alone, the order dated 04.09.2023 is liable to be set aside. 12. Further, the Apex Court in re; Hardeep Singh (supra), Sartaj Singh (supra), Yashodhan Singh (supra) and Balu Sudam Khalde (supra) has clearly held that though the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are invoked sparingly but at the same time, if there is any cogent material/ evidence available on record, the powers should be invoked so as to conclude the trial to its logical conclusion. In the present case, the petitioner, who is an injured witness, has not been examined by the court concerned till date and on the basis of chief-examination of injured witness and other eye witnesses wherein the names of above named accused persons have been indicated, the court concerned must evaluate such evidence. Further, the evidentiary value of the injured witness is on the high pedestal and the present petitioner being inured witness and he is stating on oath in this petition that accused persons against whom the charge sheet has not been filed were the assailants. Further, the evidentiary value of the injured witness is on the high pedestal and the present petitioner being inured witness and he is stating on oath in this petition that accused persons against whom the charge sheet has not been filed were the assailants. Besides, Dharmendra Kumar Singh and Shivam, who are injured witnesses, have stated in chief examination that the persons against whom the allegations have been levelled in the application filed under Section 319 C.P.C. have assaulted the victim, therefore, such application should have been considered properly. 13. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.09.2023 is hereby set aside/ quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to decide the application dated 17.10.2022 filed by Dharmendra Kumar Singh afresh. Liberty is also given to the petitioner, who is injured witness, to file such application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by providing certified copy of this order before the court concerned and that application shall also be decided by the learned trial court, strictly in accordance with law, by speaking and reasoned order, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, with expedition, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.