RAJ MANI CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the ma­terial available on record.
(2.) THIS petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petition­ers for quashing the impugned order dated 15.5.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Hardoi in S.T. No. 611 of 2009 (Crime No. 294 of 2009); State v. famal, under sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. and section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi whereby he has allowed the application filed by the prosecu­tion under section 319, Cr.P.C. and sum­moned the accused and also for staying the proceeding of the case in pursuance of the said impugned order dated 15.5.2009. The submission of the learned Counsel for the accused petitioners is that on the written report of the complainant Naseem, son of Nairn, resident of Village Sursaini, Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao, the police of Police Station Malla­wan, District Hardoi, registered a case un­der sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act at Crime No. 294 of 2009 against the accused Jamal (husband), Hassanne, Smt. Rafia, Kamal and Smt. Afsana for investigation. The case was investigated by the Circle Of­ficer i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police who did not find the involvement of the accused petitioners in the alleged incident, consequently, he exonerated them. He found the prima facie, evidence against the accused Jamal in the commission of the alleged offences, therefore, he submitted charge sheet only against the accused Ja­mal. During the course of trial, the prose­cution moved an application under section 319, Cr.P.C. to summon the accused peti­tioners on the ground that on the basis of statements of P.W.1 Naseem and P.W.4 Shamim, the involvement of the accused petitioners in commission of the alleged offences was established. The accused Ja­mal who was facing trial, opposed the ap­plication and filed objection. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution and defence at length, allowed the application filed by the prosecution by the impugned order dated 15.5.2010 which has given rise to the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petition­ers submits that the power of the trial Court to summon a person as an accused under section 319, Cr.P.C. cannot be exer­cised in a routine manner; rather it can be exercised sparingly in a rare case where the involvement of the accused is fully estab­lished on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and there is most likelihood of conviction of the accused on the basis of such evidence. The Court has to record the specific finding in this regard but in this case the Court without recording any rea­son, has allowed the application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has ob­served that the statements of P.W.1 Nas­eem and P.W.4 Shamim were found suffi­cient to summon the accused petitioners but he had not specifically recorded his satisfaction as to whether the statements of P.W.1 Naseeem and P.W.4 Shamim were of such nature that the involvement of ac­cused petitioners was fully established and the possibility of conviction of the accused petitioners was there. The impugned order is not based on reasons, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed on this ground.;