ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The question that falls for consideration is whether or not the summoning of the appellant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.') to face trial in the case arising out of Case Crime No.98/2014 under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Kharela, District Mahoba, is justified in law. 4. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, on 11.03.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant and his associates, including Bharat Kumar Tiwari, Ram Milan @ Chainu, Pradeep Kumar and Lakhan Lal Tiwari together went to the fields situated at Basani area at Pahreta Mauza. The farmhouse of one of the accused Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh (who is husband of the appellant) is also there in those fields, where the said Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh, the appellant, Raghvendra Singh, Ram Singh and one unknown person were sitting on the roof. One person was armed with DBBL Gun and on seeing the complainant and his associates, the accused person allegedly started indiscriminate firing. The gun-shot fired by Raju Singh hit Chainu Nai. Raghvendra Singh allegedly fired from his mouser and the appellant (Smt. Rama Singh) is also alleged to have fired gun-shot. The firing led to fatal injuries to Bharat Kumar Tiwari, who was brought to the District Hospital Mahoba in injured condition and was declared dead. In the post mortem report dated 12.03.2014, the doctor found two gunshot injuries being an entry wound with an exit on the body of the deceased. The cause of death was opined as 'haemorrhagic shock due to ante-mortem gun-shot injury'. Chainu Nai was medically examined on 11.03.2014 at Maharani Laxmi Bai Medical College, Jhansi where he was provisionally diagnosed as having firearm injury on right shoulder. He was provided treatment. He was found to have had fracture of clavicle. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet no.40/2014 dated 10.06.2014 was filed against Ram Singh @ Ramu Singh under Section 302/307 of IPC. So far as the appellant (Smt. Rama Singh) and her father-in-law (Raghvendra Singh) are concerned, their implication was found to be false and as such their names were ordered to be deleted. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet no.40/2014 dated 10.06.2014 was filed against Ram Singh @ Ramu Singh under Section 302/307 of IPC. So far as the appellant (Smt. Rama Singh) and her father-in-law (Raghvendra Singh) are concerned, their implication was found to be false and as such their names were ordered to be deleted. The husband of the appellant, namely, Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh was found absconding and as such proceedings under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. were drawn against him. 6. It seems that eventually the Investigating Officer came to a conclusion that Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh, the appellant as well as her father-in-law Raghvendra Singh -all were falsely implicated and submitted Report No.55/2015 in this regard. 7. Meanwhile, the charges against the main accused were framed and the trial commenced. The statements of PW-1 (Pushpraj Singh), PW-2 (Lakhan Lal) and PW-3 (Chainu Nai) were recorded. While the statement of Chainu Nai was still being recorded, the complainant (respondent no.2) moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2017 for summoning of the appellant and her husband (Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh) as additional accused to face trial under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. 8. It may be noticed at this stage that the complainant had filed a Protest Petition against the Final Report No.55/2015. That Protest Petition was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 07.11.2015. The Sessions Judge, however, vide order dated 03.09.2016 set aside the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It seems that the Chief Judicial Magistrate thereafter passed another order on 14.06.2019 directing further investigation. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant and her husband before the High Court as their petitions laying challenge to that order came to be dismissed on 05.11.2019. 9. Be that as it may, pursuant to the order of further investigation, a supplementary report bearing Parcha No.20 dated 20.09.2019 was filed. The operative part whereof reads as follows: 'It is proved that Sonu Singh alias Pushparaj Singh along with his accompalices who were of criminal tendency went to Raju Singh's farmhouse armed with weapons in unanimity, unconsciously and fired. From further analysis, there does not seem to be any intention of murder and criminal conspiracy of Avnendra alias Raju Singh. Nor has any solid evidence of attempt to murder against Avnendra alias Raju Singh been received from the further investigation so far. From further analysis, there does not seem to be any intention of murder and criminal conspiracy of Avnendra alias Raju Singh. Nor has any solid evidence of attempt to murder against Avnendra alias Raju Singh been received from the further investigation so far. In a serious crime like murder, it is not justifiable to prove the allegation without evidence. Avnendra Singh alias Raju Singh, Rama Singh, wife of Raju Singh, Raghavendra Singh have not been found to be involved in the above mentioned incident in any way and involved in criminal conspiracy. And the presence of Raghavendra Singh, Rama Singh has not been found at the spot. During investigation, the above nomination was found to be incorrect. The entire work of evidence collection has been done in the above indictment by the former IO. Now there is no action left. Further investigation is closed confirming the proceedings of evidence collection related to the above case by the former investigator Mr. RB Singh and confirming the final report sent against the opposite party Avnendra Singh alias Raju Singh, Ramasingh, Raghavendra Singh.' 10. A perusal of the aforesaid report would reveal that statements of some more alleged eye-witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and those were referred to by the Investigating Officer in support of the conclusion drawn by him, as reproduced above. It is, however, not necessary for us to refer to those statements or consider their reliability. 11. As noticed earlier, the application for summoning the appellant and her husband as additional accused was moved on 20.07.2017. The Trial Court, for the reasons best known to it, kept the said application pending for more than 4 years and finally allowed it vide order dated 28.10.2021. 12. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant and her husband before the High Court through two separate petitions and both came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2023. 13. We may, at the outset, also take note of the preliminary objections raised by Shri Rajul Bhargava, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 regarding maintainability of the instant appeal. 13. We may, at the outset, also take note of the preliminary objections raised by Shri Rajul Bhargava, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 regarding maintainability of the instant appeal. In this regard, he has referred to the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.5054/2023, which was filed by the husband of the appellant and was dismissed being withdrawn by counsel for the petitioner therein with liberty to raise all the contentions before the Trial Court at an appropriate stage. Shri Bhargava, thus, has urged that since both husband and wife were summoned on the basis of same set of evidence and the impugned order qua the appellant's husband stands upheld, the instant appeal is also liable to be met with the same fate. 14. With respect to the aforesaid objection re: maintainability, we do not find any merit therein. We say so for the reason that firstly the husband of the appellant was found to be absconding, which was taken as a strong circumstance inferring his implication. Secondly, the supplementary investigation report dated 20.09.2019 absolved the appellant and her father-in-law on the ground that both were not found present at the time of occurrence. There is no such categorical finding of fact recorded qua the husband of the appellant. These two factors draw distinction between what is attributed to the appellant's husband, namely, Raju Singh @ Avnendra Singh vis-a-vis the allegations against the appellant. We may hasten to add that the father-in-law of the appellant, namely, Raghvendra Singh has unfortunately died and the issue qua him has become infructuous. 15. Adverting to the merits of the impugned order of the Trial Court, the question that arises for further consideration is whether it was imperative and obligatory upon the Trial Court to consider the entire 'material' and 'evidence' that had been brought on record after filing of the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on 20.07.2017 and till the Trial Court took a decision thereupon after more than four years on 28.10.2021? Shri Bhargava urges that except the statements of three prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 to PW-3, there was no 'evidence' on record before the Trial Court which could be taken into account for the purpose of formation of an opinion under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 16. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel for the appellant strongly refutes such claim. Shri Bhargava urges that except the statements of three prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 to PW-3, there was no 'evidence' on record before the Trial Court which could be taken into account for the purpose of formation of an opinion under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 16. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel for the appellant strongly refutes such claim. According to her, once the Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of statutory powers under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. had directed further investigation and pursuant thereto, if a supplementary report had been brought on record, it is obligatory upon the Trial Court to consider the material contained in such report along with the conclusions that may have been drawn by the Investigating Officer. She submits that it is the prerogative of the Trial Court to accept or discard the material brought on record, but to completely overlook that report, while summoning the appellant under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to face trial, was impermissible in law. 17. We may hasten to add that both sides have heavily relied upon certain paragraphs of the Constitutional Bench decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 . It is urged on behalf of the appellant that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power which ought to be exercised sparingly and only in those circumstances where the case so warrant. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel explains that there cannot be a summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. only on the basis of formation of a prima facie opinion unless there is much stronger evidence than a mere probability of the appellant's complexity. According to her, the litmus test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra) has not been applied at all by the Trial Court. 18. In this regard, Ms. Madhavi Divan has further relied upon Juhru vs. Karim, (2023) 5 SCC 406 , where, while explaining the import and true meaning of the principles evolved by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra), this Court laid down as follows: 16. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional accused. We may hasten to add that with a view to prevent the frequent misuse of power to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums referred to above, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be invoked. 19. As regard to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Sonam (sister-in-law), and Rijwan (brother-in-law) of the deceased, it appears to us that despite both of them being named in the FIR and in the examination-in-chief of Respondent No.1, there is no credible evidence to connect them with the unnatural death of Rukseena. There is no cogent material that Appellant No. 2, even after her marriage with Appellant No. 3, continued to reside in her parents' house or that they used to inter-meddle in the day to day marital life of the deceased and Aamir. In the absence of any authentic evidence to bring them in close proximity of the reported crime, it would be unjustified to call upon Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as additional accused in this case.' 19. Reliance has also placed in Brijendra Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 and some other decisions of this Court, which are not necessary to be referred to, so as to avoid multiplicity. 20. Contrarily, Shri Bhargava, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 - complainant refers to paragraphs 78 and 85 of the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh (supra), besides the conclusion drawn in paragraph 117.1, 117.2 and 117.3 of the report. 21. We have considered the submissions in this regard. 20. Contrarily, Shri Bhargava, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 - complainant refers to paragraphs 78 and 85 of the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh (supra), besides the conclusion drawn in paragraph 117.1, 117.2 and 117.3 of the report. 21. We have considered the submissions in this regard. Keeping in view the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is clarified, in no uncertain terms that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. moved by respondent no.2. We are, however, of the view that the Trial Court as well as the High Court have erred while overlooking the settled principles of law and the vigorous conditions that are to be applied mandatorily while passing an order of summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The cited judgments speak for themselves and there is no need to re-state what has already been settled. All that we would like to emphasize is that if there is a lawfully collected 'material' or 'evidence' brought on record after filing of an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and before the Court forms an opinion in relation thereto, such 'material' or 'evidence' cannot be overlooked and its effect and impact ought to be taken into account for the purpose of formation of the opinion. Such a recourse having not been adopted in the instant case, the impugned orders do not fall within the contours of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 22. For the reasons aforestated, the instant appeal is allowed in part. The impugned orders of the Trial Court as well as the High Court are set aside. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application moved by respondent no.2 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. qua the appellant (only) afresh and in accordance with law. The parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective contentions before the Trial Court which shall be considered in accordance with law. 23. The occurrence took place in 2014. More than 10 years have passed, however, the trial is yet to reach at an effective stage. It is well known that in the event of acceptance of an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the trial has to recommence once again. The Trial Court is consequently directed to decide the application afresh within two months. More than 10 years have passed, however, the trial is yet to reach at an effective stage. It is well known that in the event of acceptance of an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the trial has to recommence once again. The Trial Court is consequently directed to decide the application afresh within two months. In this regard, learned Trial Court counsel for the parties are directed to extend full cooperation to the Trial Court. 24. For the sake of clarity, it is clarified that the instant order shall not give a fresh cause of action in favour of the appellant's husband to challenge his summoning under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. However, he shall be entitled to raise all his contentions before the Trial Court at an appropriate stage in terms of liberty granted by this Court in order dated 08.05.2023 passed in SLP(Crl.) No.5054/2023. 25. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 17.04.2025.