10. The Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh case [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] has given a caution that power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and extraordinary power, which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The crucial test, which has been laid down as noted above is “[t]he 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” (SCC p. 138, para 106). The present is a case, where the trial court had rejected the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 CrPC. Further, in the present case, the complainant in the FIR has not taken the names of the appellants and after investigation in which the statement of victim was also recorded, the names of the appellants did not figure. After carrying investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in which the appellants' names were also not mentioned as accused. In the statement recorded before the police, the victim has named only Natuji with whom she admitted having physical relations and who took her and with whom she went out of the house in the night and lived with him at several places. The mother of victim in her statement before the court herself has stated that the victim girl returned to the house after oneand-a-half months. In the statement, before the court, the victim has narrated the entire sequence of events. She has stated in her statement that accused Natuji used to visit her uncle's house Vishnuji, where she met Natuji. She, however, stated that it was Natuji, who had given her mobile phone. Her parents came to know about she having been given mobile phone by Natuji, then they went to the house of Natuji and threatened Natuji. After one month, Natuji gave another mobile phone to the victim, who had taken it. She stated that in the night at 12 o'clock, Natuji along with his three friends had taken her to Morbi in a jeep. She further stated that she and Natuji stayed for three days at the said place and Natuji had intercourse with her at the said place. When Natuji came to know about lodging of complaint, he took her to Modasa in the jeep. The jeep was given by Labhuji and the other two appellants were also in the jeep. She further stated that Labhuji, Shashikant and Jituji came in the jeep and took her and Natuji to the police station, where the police interrogated her and she recorded her statement. Natuji was charged with Sections 363 and 366 IPC and Sections 3 and 4
