ORDER : Annexure A1 order passed by the Additional Sessions Court - II, Kasaragod (for short, ‘the trial court’) in S.C. No.488/2012 under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( Cr.P.C .) is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. 2. One Jisha was stabbed to death at her house situated at Adukkamparambu in Madikai Panchayat at about 8.45 pm on 19.02.2012. The local Police registered an FIR and arrayed the maid servant of the house, one Mr. Tushar Sen Malik @ Madan Malik, a native of Odisha, as the sole accused. The local police initially conducted the investigation and filed the final report against the accused. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, who was employed by PW3 Chandran in his house to look after his aged father, planned to kill PW1 Sreelekha, but murdered the deceased Jisha on mistaken identity by stabbing her with a knife at 8.45 p.m. on 19.02.2012. Dissatisfied with the final report, the father of the deceased filed a Writ Petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No.9303/2013 seeking investigation by CBI. This Court, by its judgment dated 07.08.2013, directed the Crime Branch to take over the investigation and conduct further investigation. Accordingly, CBCID, Kannur Unit, took up the investigation and filed the final report, arriving at the same conclusion as the local police. 3. The accused appeared before the trial court. He pleaded not guilty. The trial of the case started on 12.07.2017. The prosecution examined 35 witnesses out of 77 witnesses cited; Exts.P1 to P31 were marked, and MOs 1 to 17 were identified. Thereafter, the trial court found that PWs 1 and 3 were also involved in the commission of the offence, and they were ordered to be arrayed as additional accused Nos.2 and 3 by invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C . PW3 is the brother of the husband of the deceased and PW1 is the wife of PW3. 4. The above Crl. M.C. has been filed by PWs 1 and 3 challenging the order (Annexure A1) arraying them as additional accused Nos.2 and 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, as per the order dated 19.01.2018, allowed the above Crl.M.C. and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 were quashed. 4. The above Crl. M.C. has been filed by PWs 1 and 3 challenging the order (Annexure A1) arraying them as additional accused Nos.2 and 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, as per the order dated 19.01.2018, allowed the above Crl.M.C. and all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A1 were quashed. Thereafter, the father of the deceased, who was examined as PW16, filed Crl.M.A. No.1529/2018 to recall the order dated 19.01.2018 and to rehear the Crl.M.C, along with Crl.M.A.No.1536/2018 to grant leave to file an application for recalling the order. He had also filed Crl.M.A. No.1530/2018 to get himself impleaded in the Crl.M.C. All these applications are allowed. The petitioner therein is impleaded as additional respondent No.3, and the order dated 19.01.2018 is recalled. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Sunny Mathew and the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent Sri. M. Sasindran. 6. The investigating officer filed a detailed report. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the power exercisable under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is an extraordinary one, and it should be exercised sparingly and with caution only if compelling reasons exist. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court failed to objectively satisfy itself before deciding to invoke the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C . The order impugned is manifestly illegal and liable to be set aside, submitted the counsel. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent submitted that the trial court invoked its power based on the evidence, and there is no reason for interference. 8. Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) empowers the court holding trial to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such a person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together with the accused who is facing the trial. A person not named in the FIR, or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted, or a person who has been discharged, can be summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) provided it appears from evidence that such a person could be tried along with the accused already facing trial. A person not named in the FIR, or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted, or a person who has been discharged, can be summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) provided it appears from evidence that such a person could be tried along with the accused already facing trial. The law on the point of summoning additional accused in exercise of the power conferred under Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) is well settled. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) is a discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The threshold for summoning is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the trial court, while exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS), must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned ( Satbir Singh v. Rajesh Kumar 2025 SCC OnLine SC 694 ). What is essential for the exercise of the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C (Section 358 of BNSS) is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime, and that said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned. It is not to be exercised when 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, should such power be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than a prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of the charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it 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 . [ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 ]. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C . [ Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 ]. Recently the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab ( 2025 KHC OnLine 6443 ) held that power under Section 319 (Section 358 of BNSS) is extraordinary and therefore to be exercised with circumspection, yet it is neither illusory nor deferential to investigative conclusions; once live evidence evinces a prima facie case stronger than mere suspicion, the court must act. 9. The deceased Jisha was residing at her matrimonial house along with her brother-in-law (PW3) and his wife (PW1), who are the petitioners herein. The father of PW3 also resided with them. The accused was employed in the house to take care of the father of PW3, who was ailing. On 19.02.2012, Jisha sustained serious stab injuries in the kitchen of the house. She was immediately taken to the hospital by the 2 nd petitioner along with others. She succumbed to the injuries later. During the investigation, the accused was arrested from the terrace of the house on 21.02.2012. After the investigation, the final report was filed against the accused, alleging an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. There were absolutely no allegations against the petitioners in the final report; rather, they were cited as prime witnesses for the prosecution. 10. The impugned order would show that the trial court concluded that there exists strong circumstantial evidence against the petitioners in the commission of the crime mainly on the following grounds; i. Though PW1 was present in the house at the time of the incident, she did not disclose the accused's name to the police on the same day of the incident. ii. There was an unreasonable delay in admitting the deceased to the hospital. iii. The fuse of the main electrical power of the house was removed 10-15 minutes prior to the commission of the offence. However, no one in the house had enquired as to how the electricity failed in the house, even though there was electric supply and power in the nearby house. iv. iii. The fuse of the main electrical power of the house was removed 10-15 minutes prior to the commission of the offence. However, no one in the house had enquired as to how the electricity failed in the house, even though there was electric supply and power in the nearby house. iv. The offence was committed at about 8.45 p.m. on 19.02.2012, but the accused was intercepted from the terrace of the house only on 21.02.2012 at about 12.00 p.m. v. PW19, the Jail Warden deposed that the accused gave a confession to him at the Jail while he was a remand prisoner about the involvement of his boss in the commission of the offence. 11. I fail to understand how the above evidence/ circumstances suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the offence. The omission, if any, on the part of PW1 in disclosing the name of the accused to the police cannot be taken as a ground to suspect her complicity in the commission of the crime. In the report filed by the investigating officer, it is categorically stated that in the statement given by PW1 on 20.02.2012, she clearly mentioned the name of the accused. The FIR was registered only on 20.02.2012. Though in FIS, the time of the incident was shown as 8.15 p.m, it was clarified by the person who gave the FIS in his subsequent statement given on the next day that the time of the incident was 8.45 p.m. It has come out in evidence that PW3 was informed about the incident at 8.51 p.m. He came from Irikulam town to the home and took the deceased to the hospital, which is six kms away. They reached the hospital at 9.15 p.m. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was an undue delay in taking the deceased to the hospital. Mere non-enquiry about the lack of electric supply cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance against PW1. That apart, the report of the investigating officer would show that there was inverter connection in the nearby houses. The evidence disclosed that immediately after the incident, the accused left the house, but on realising that his personal belongings were kept on the terrace of the house, he went back to the terrace and was held up there. Thereafter, he could not escape from there since the local people had assembled there. The evidence disclosed that immediately after the incident, the accused left the house, but on realising that his personal belongings were kept on the terrace of the house, he went back to the terrace and was held up there. Thereafter, he could not escape from there since the local people had assembled there. That may be the reason why he was intercepted from the terrace on 21.02.2012 at about 12 p.m. That cannot be taken as a circumstance against the petitioners to contend that they concealed the accused on the terrace of the house. In the alleged confession made by the accused before PW19, he did not disclose the name or the identity of the petitioners. That apart, he did not state so to the local police. He came out with the extrajudicial confession before the crime branch only in 2013, after about one year and ten months. 12. The grounds relied on by the trial court are not even prima facie sufficient to invoke Section 319 of Cr.P.C . There is nothing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution so far, even to suspect the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime. The trial court cannot exercise the extraordinary power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C mechanically and on guesswork based on some stray evidence that has come on record implicating the person sought to be proceeded against, unless the involvement of such a person in the commission of a crime is manifested from the evidence. In fact, PWs 1 and 3 are crucial witnesses relied on by the prosecution. Arraying them as accused may adversely affect the prosecution case. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and accordingly, it is set aside. The Crl.M.C. stands allowed.