ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 16.03.2023 and 28.12.2015 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 41/2023 (Rajkumar Tiwari @ Raja vs. State of Chhattisgarh) by which the revision petition filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed and the Revisional Court has quashed the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3 in Criminal Case No. 5/2018 (State vs. Tribhuwan Mishra) by which the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the State/prosecution under Section 319 and impleaded respondent No. 2 as accused in the case. 2. Brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner lodged FIR before Police Station Purani Bhilai on 18.12.2017 bearing crime No. 441 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 IPC against Tribhuwan Mishra, Pushpa, Pawan Mishra and Raja Tiwari alleging that on the date of incident on 18.12.2017 at about 12.30 o’clock they were constructing ladder on the public drain. The complainant has demanded Rs.27,000/- from the accused person as he has supplied juice in the marriage of daughter of Tribhuvan Mishra. On being heard regarding demand of money, respondent No. 2 started abusing and using filthy language in the public place and committed marpit with handd, fists and danda to the complainant. It is also case of the prosecution that when the complainant tried to intervene in the scuffle then Tribhuvan Mishra committed marpit with hands, fists and Pushpa and Pawan committed marpit with his wife and thereafter Tribhuvan Mishra and Rajkumar Tiwari committed marpit with the rod on the head of his daughter, as a result of which blood was oozing from her head, the incident was seen by Sudhir Singh, Dineshram and other public also. On the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered for commission of offence as aforestated. 3. During investigation statements of the complainants were recorded wherein they have reiterated the same stand which they have taken in the FIR. It has been further contended that while they were returning from the hospital after taking treatment at about 3.30 pm. then Rajkumar Tiwari chased them having rod in his hand. The persons who were standing at the time of incident saved them then only they escaped from there. It has been further contended that while they were returning from the hospital after taking treatment at about 3.30 pm. then Rajkumar Tiwari chased them having rod in his hand. The persons who were standing at the time of incident saved them then only they escaped from there. The complainant’s case was supported by other witnesses namely Shakuntala Singh, Sitanshusingh, Divya Singh and Sudhir Singh whose statements were recorded by the police. 4. On the basis of investigation final report was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein the name of respondent No. 2 Raja Tiwari was not included in the hierarchy of the accused thereafter the prosecution has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 18.01.2023 has allowed the said application by recording its finding that Rajkumar Tiwari has also named accused in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the name of Rajkumar Tiwari was mentioned, as such there is sufficient material to incorporate the name of Rajkumar Tiwari in the FIR as accused. The learned Magistrate while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2039 of 2012 dated 13.12.2012 has allowed the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. submitted by the prosecution. 5. Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved with this order has preferred revision petition before the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which is registered as Revision No. 41/2023, which was allowed by the revisional court. Learned Revisional Court while allowing the revision has recorded its finding as under: “11. It is very clear that one incident was happened and parties concern went to report the same to the police station and when they were coming back from said police station then petitioner had committed another crime. It means the offence, said to be committed by petitioner, is not committed in continuation of earlier incident. If so, done by the petitioner, then same is another crime and will never be said to the part of earlier one. 12. Therefore, after going through the material on record, it is very clear that petitioner, if so, committed another crime, which may be the consequential of earlier one but clearly ws not the part of that earlier committed offence. 12. Therefore, after going through the material on record, it is very clear that petitioner, if so, committed another crime, which may be the consequential of earlier one but clearly ws not the part of that earlier committed offence. Therefore, he shall not be added as an accused in that matter in which he was not a part of.” 6. Accordingly, the Court below quashed the order passed by the JMFC on 18.01.2023 in Criminal Case No. 5/2018 (State vs. Tribhuwan Mishra). Being aggrieved with the order, the petitioner preferred instant Cr. M.P. before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from bare perusal of the FIR, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. prima-facie, involvement of the respondent No. 2 was there still the revisional Court has committed material illegality and irregularity in interfering in the well reasoned order, therefore, order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be quashed by this Court. 8. The State has filed the reply and has supported the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and would rely upon the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2014 (3) SCC 92 and would submit that the order passed by the Revisional Court suffers from illegality which warrants interference by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that the order passed by the Revisional Court is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the above factual and legal position, the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the learned Revisional Court has committed illegality in setting a side well reasoned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class ignoring the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 12. To decide the controversy raised in this matter, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “Section 319 power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. To decide the controversy raised in this matter, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 319 Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “Section 319 power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. 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. (i) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (ii) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (iii) Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-Section (1) then: 1. the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard. 2. 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.” 13. From bare perusal of Section 319 Cr.P.C. it is quite vivid that the power has been conferred on the Court that in the course of any inquiry or trial of an offence that the person who has not been arrayed as accused who has committed 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. 14. For applying the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. it is to be seen whether some material is collected in the investigation to incorporate the person as accused in the case or not. The record of the case, final report as well as FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would show that the involvement of respondent No. 2. The record of the case would further show that the complainant has named accused still in the final report still, the prosecution has not included the name of Rajkumar Tiwari as accused. Thus, the prosecution has committed illegality while submitting final report. The record of the case would further show that the complainant has named accused still in the final report still, the prosecution has not included the name of Rajkumar Tiwari as accused. Thus, the prosecution has committed illegality while submitting final report. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class thereafter it has passed the well reasoned order which has wrongly been set aside by Revisional Court as it has not been taken into consideration the material, FIR lodged against the accused persons as well as the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 15. From bare perusal of the order of Revisional Court, it is quite vivid that the Revisional Court has taken into consideration the second part of statement wherein the complainant has alleged the incident subsequently taken place at 3.30 p.m. as such committed illegality and irregularity and ignored the well settled principle which is required while considering the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 16. Considering this aspect of the matter, the order passed by the Revisional Court is against the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. as well as the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2014 (3) SCC 92 has held at paragraph 105 & 106 as under:. “105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary 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 un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. 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 un-rebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 17. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2023 SC 3648 has held as under: “The entire purpose of criminal trial is to go to the truth of the matter. Once there is satisfaction of the Court that there is evidence before it that an accused has committed an offence, the court can proceed against such a person. At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court. The evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter-alia, by the revisionist. The Court need not cross-examine this witness. It can stop the trial at that stage itself if such application had been moved under Section 319. The detail examination of the witness and other witnesses is a subject matter of the trial which has to begin afresh. The scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been discussed and dealt with in detail in the Constitution Bench judgment of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 where it said: “12. Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.” 18. Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C.” 18. The learned trial Court has recorded its finding while arraying the respondent No. 2 as accused by relying on the FIR and statement of complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also the statement of Sudhir Singh recorded on 27.10.2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein he has categorically stated that Raja Tiwari has assaulted younger son of Deenbandhu. The Revisional Court without considering the material placed on record has set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, thus, committed illegality which warrants interference by this court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 19. Accordingly, order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 41/2023 is set aside and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3 in Criminal Case No. 5/2018 is restored and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law against respondent No. 2 also. 20. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding whether respondent No. 2 has committed the offence or not. This Court has only considered the material placed on record while considering the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Revisional Court. The learned trial Court will decide the trial against respondent No. 2 without being influenced from any of the observation made by this Court.