JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satyendra Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Adarsh Srivastava, the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant Revision filed under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have challenged the validity of an order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Session Trial No.210 of 2022 whereby an application filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning the revisionists and another person Ritesh Rana to face trial in respect of Case Crime No.305 of 2020 under Section 302 /149, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act relating to Police Station- Kudwar, District- Sultanpur, has been allowed and the applicants have been summoned to face the trial. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 17.06.2020 against ten persons, including the revisionists, stating that the informant's daughter-in-law was the village Pradhan and all her works were looked after by her husband (the informant's son Mainuddin) as her representative. Accused persons-Iqbal @ Balu, Akhlakh Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmad, Ritesh Rana, Rohit Tewari, Gulam Asgari, Hashim, Khursheed Alam and Zakir used to sit at the electronics shop of Bilal Ahmad and they used to keep on making strategies for spreading their clout in the village and they were jealous about the works being done in Gram Sabha by the complainant's son. When the complainant's son Mainuddin reached the Jan Seva Shop of the complainant's younger son- Nuruddin at about 08:30 on 17.06.2020, all the accused persons attacked him. Iqbal, Gulam Asgari and Khursheed Alam had fired gun-shots at him. When the complainant's other son- Mainuddin ran to save his brother, he was also shot at and thereafter all the accused persons beaten them up with sticks. Both the injured persons were taken to the District Hospital, Sultanpur where Mainuddin died and Nuruddin was referred to Medical College, Lucknow. 4. In the statement of the complainant- Mohd. Ramzan recorded by the Investigating Officer, he reiterated the FIR version. 5. In the statement of the injured Nuruddin recorded by the Investigating Officer, he did not mention the name of the revisionists. 4. In the statement of the complainant- Mohd. Ramzan recorded by the Investigating Officer, he reiterated the FIR version. 5. In the statement of the injured Nuruddin recorded by the Investigating Officer, he did not mention the name of the revisionists. The revisionists were not named in the statements of some shopkeepers, who are mentioned as eye-witnesses of the incident. 6. After investigation, the Investigation Officer found that the allegations against the applicants and Ritesh Rana could not be established. 7. In the additional statement of the injured Nuruddin recorded by the Investigating Officer, he stated that the applicants and Ritesh Rana were not involved in the incident. His father had lodged the FIR but he was not present at the time of the incident. In the additional statement of the informant also, he stated that the revisionists and Ritesh Rana were not involved in the incident. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet dated 10.09.2020 against Iqbal Hussain @ Balu, Gulam Asgari, Khursheed Alam (sons of Zakir Hussain @ Zakku) and Zakir Hussain @ Zakku and the implication of Hashim, Bilal Ahmad, Akhlakh Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmad, Rohit Tewari and Ritesh Rana was found to be false. 8. The trial Court took congizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons against whom the charge-sheet has been filed. 9. After examination of PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-2 (the injured Nuruddin), the complainant- opposite party No.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stating that PW-1 and PW-2 have stated before the Court that all the accused persons had fired at Mainuddin and Nuruddin with the intention of killing them, due to which Mainuddin died and Nurruddin suffered a gun-shot injury in his neck. Involvement of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana in commission of the offence is established and the case of their trial is made out from the aforesaid evidence produced in the trial. 10. The application was opposed on behalf of the revisionists and Akhlakh Ahmad (the revisionist No.2), Shakeel Ahmad, Rohit Tewari and Ritesh Rana claimed alibi. 11. This application has been allowed by the trial Court by means of an impugned order dated 23.10.2024. 10. The application was opposed on behalf of the revisionists and Akhlakh Ahmad (the revisionist No.2), Shakeel Ahmad, Rohit Tewari and Ritesh Rana claimed alibi. 11. This application has been allowed by the trial Court by means of an impugned order dated 23.10.2024. The trial Court has stated in the impugned order that the complainant has stated about involvement of the revisionists in commission of the offence in the FIR and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has stated about the involvement of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana during his examination before the trial Court. PW-2, who got injured in the incident and who is brother of the deceased, has also stated before the Court about involvement of all the persons named as accused in the FIR, including the revisionists and Ritesh Rana, in commission of the offence. From the evidence available on record, involvement of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana in commission of the offence is established prima facie and a case for summoning them to face the trial is made out. 12. The trial Court has referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. : AIR 2000 SC 1127 , Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. : (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. Crl. Appeal No.395 of 2019 decided on 27.02.2019 . 13. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, Shri Arun Sinha, the learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that there was ample evidence collected during investigation to establish that the applicants were not involved in commission of the offence and, therefore, the Investigating Officer had rightly exonerated them. Although the complainant had stated about the involvement of the revisionists in commission of the offence in the FIR and in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he has again reiterated the same during his examination before the trial Court, the injured Nuruddin had stated during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that his father was not present at the time of the incident and Nuruddin had stated before the Investigating Officer that the revisionists and Ritesh Rana were not involved in commission of the offence. Therefore, the statement of PW-1 that the revisionists were involved in commission of the offence, when his injured son has stated that PW-1 was not present at the time of incident, is not sufficient to summon the applicants to face the trial. So far as the PW-2 is concerned, he had himself stated earlier that the revisionists were not involved in commission of the offence and, therefore, the revisionists cannot be summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of statement of PW-2. 14. Section 319 Cr.P.C. provides as follows:- " 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. (2) 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. (3) 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. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, 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." 15. Sri Arun Sinha has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hardeep Singh (supra) and Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan : (2017) 7 SCC 706 . 16. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- " 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. v. State of Rajasthan : (2017) 7 SCC 706 . 16. In Hardeep Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- " 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 unrebutted, 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. ..... 111. Even the Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal (CB) has held that the Sessions Court can also exercise its original jurisdiction and summon a person as an accused in case his name appears in Column 2 of the chargesheet, once the case had been committed to it. ..... 111. Even the Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal (CB) has held that the Sessions Court can also exercise its original jurisdiction and summon a person as an accused in case his name appears in Column 2 of the chargesheet, once the case had been committed to it. It means that a person whose name does not appear even in the FIR or in the chargesheet or whose name appears in the FIR and not in the main part of the chargesheet but in Column 2 and has not been summoned as an accused in exercise of the powers under Section 193 Cr.P.C. can still be summoned by the court, provided the court is satisfied that the conditions provided in the said statutory provisions stand fulfilled." 17. In Brijendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the decision in Hardeep Singh (supra) and framed the moot questions involved in the case that what is the degree of satisfaction that is required for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and in what situations this power should be exercised in respect to a person named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted. 18. While answering to the aforesaid questions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the following passage from the judgment of Hardeep Singh (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in Brijendra Singh (supra) that :- "In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh’s case may be recapitulated: Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. No doubt, such evidence that has surfaced in examination-in-chief, without cross- examination of witnesses, can also be taken into consideration. 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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. " 19. What comes out from the judgments in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) and Brijendra Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the trial Court may summon any person named in the FIR but against whom the charge-sheet has not been filed by the Investigating Officer, if some evidence comes against such persons from which he appears to be guilty of the offence. The evidence refers to material placed before the trial Court as prosecution evidence and not the material collected by the Investigating Officer. The material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation can be utilized for corroboration and to support the evidence recorded by the trial Court to invoke the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but at this stage it cannot be used to contradict or disbelieve the evidence produced before the trial Court. If the evidence produced before the trial Court makes out more than a prima facie case for trial of the accused persons, that is sufficient for summoning the accused persons to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and it is not required that before summoning the accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court should be satisfied that the evidence is such as would lead to conviction of the accused persons. At the stage of summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court is not required to form any opinion as to guilt of the accused person. 20. In the present case, the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by the trial Court clearly make out a case for trial of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana and it is not necessary that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 ought to have been scrutinized by the trial Court to such an extent as to record a satisfaction that it was sufficient for conviction of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana. 21. Section 319 Cr.P.C. confers a discretionary powers upon the trial Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the discretion has to be exercised only where more than a mere prima facie case is made out against the persons and this discretion should not be exercised in a casual or cavalier manner. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court indicates that the trial Court has examined the material on record, the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded by the trial Court, statements recorded by the Investigating Officer and after analysis of all the relevant material, the trial Court has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of cogent reasons recorded in the order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court has exercised its discretion in a casual and cavalier manner, without examining the relevant material and without recording a satisfaction that a case for trial of the revisionists and Ritesh Rana is made out. 22. While examining the validity of an order passed by the trial Court exercising its discretion, the scope of scrutiny by the revisional Court under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining whether the discretion has been exercised in accordance with law or not. If the discretion has been exercised in accordance with law, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter and after recording the cogent reasons for exercising the discretion, this court will not interfere with the order in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction merely because another view may also be possible and the trial court could have exercised the discretion otherwise also. 23. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Sultanpur in Session Trial No.210 of 2022. There is no good ground to interfere in the order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 24. The revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed 25. Interim order dated 03.12.2024 stands discharged.