- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The petitioners, in this application have prayed for quashing the order dated-16.11.2009, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 825 of 2006, whereby the learned court below has issued summons directing the petitioners to appear in the case and to face trial for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. 3. Assailing the impugned order of cognizance, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the impugned order of cognizance is bad both on the points of law as well as on facts and has been passed without application of judicial mind and without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. Elaborating the arguments, learned counsel explains that in the complaint petition as also in the depositions, the complainant has not made any specific allegation against the present petitioners, except some allegations against one of the accused, namely, K. K. Mandirwar. As such, the learned court below had taken cognizance only against the aforesaid coaccused, namely, K.K. Mandirwar and not against the present petitioners, though they were also named in the complaint petition. Learned counsel adds that on a bare reading of the statement of the complainant, it would be apparent that the names of the petitioners are intentionally and deliberately referred to by the complainant only to harass them. Learned counsel adds that even as has been explained by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kailash V/s. The State of Rajasthan & Another, 2008 AIR(SC) 1564 the scope under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously and the Magistrate has to take also into notice, that the evidences are cogent, reliable and sufficient to secure conviction of the accused persons and if on the other hand, the evidences are inconsistent, contradictory and vague and the chances of conviction is bleak, then it would not be proper to summon the accused persons to face trial. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 as also learned counsel for the State would argue that considering the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, the learned court below has rightly considered that the petitioners are also liable to face trial for the offences and the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has already been made by the court below. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the materials available on record including the averments contained in the complaint petition and the deposition of the complainant. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below has considered the statements of the complainant and her witnesses. From perusal of the statements contained in the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant had accused not only the principal accused, K. K. Mandirwar of having entered into her house and of having assaulted her and her son but she had also attributed such allegations of assault against the other accused and named them in the complaint petition. In her deposition before the trial court, the complainant has reiterated the same statements alleging that the accused persons had assaulted her and her son after dragging the boy out of her house, though she had made one improved version against two of the accused persons that at the relevant time they were armed with Lathis. The statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant corroborate the statements of the complainant. There is consistent evidence both of the complainant and her witnesses that the accused persons have indulged in assault on the lady and her son. 7. In the case of Kailash , referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts are different since, there was an improved version in the statement of the complainant over what was earlier stated in the complaint petition, in as much as, though there was no allegation that any axe blow was dealt with on the victim, but in the statements during the trial, the witness had given an improved version by stating that the accused persons had inflicted an axe blow on the victim. It was upon hearing these aspects of the matter, that the apex Court has observed that the discretion under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly, with caution and only when the concerned Court finds that some offence has been committed by such persons, can the Court issue summons to such persons to face trial. 8. In the present case, from the evidences of the complainant and her witnesses, it does transpire that there is consistent evidence that all the accused persons, including the accused K. K. Mandirwar, had indulged in the assault made on the complainant and her son and to this extent, the learned court below has rightly inferred that the other accused persons, namely the present petitioners, should also be called upon to face trial for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. 9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this Cr. Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The petitioners, if they have not appeared before the trial court as yet, are directed to appear within four weeks from the date of this order.;