HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6046 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2, however learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Present revision has been preferred against the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur, by which the revisionist has been summoned as prospective accused in respect of Criminal Case No. 5465 of 2022 (State vs. Jahangir and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Sections 326/34, 323 and 504 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that initially the revisionist and his father Jahangir were nominated in the said case crime, however, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation dropped the name of one Zubair, the revisionist herein, therefore the chargesheet has been filed against Jahangir only. On the basis of the chargesheet submitted by the police, the A.C.J.M-I, Saharanpur framed the charge against the accused Jahangir and thereafter the trial commenced. During the course of trial, PW1 namely, Jabir was examined and his evidence has not yet been completed and during the course of cross-examination an application for summoning the revisionist Under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved. He further submitted that the order of summoning the revisionist is bad in law, as much as the same is based on the testimony of only single witness, though there are eleven witnesses in total, out of which only five witnesses of fact and rest of the witness are formal in nature. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Daga, Vipul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shyam Shanker Pandey Zubair .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Anther .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur is in accordance with law and the testimony of the single witness is sufficient to summon the accused person. There is sufficient evidence against the accused person, including medical report and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 21.10.2024. 7. Having regard to the fact that only single witness has been examined and four witnesses of fact are yet to be examined, besides formal witnesses, it would be appropriate that once all five witnesses of fact have been examined, which will not leave any scope for any witness either to support or otherwise, the case of the prosecution, hence it is directed that once the evidence of all five witnesses of fact has been concluded, the concerned A.C.J.M. may pass the order on the said application, if any such application, inviting the attention of learned A.C.J.M. is presented before the concerned court by the revisionist at relevant point of time. 8. Without going into other controversies and the merits of the case, it is directed that the application moved by the informant be considered as fresh after completion of evidence of five witnesses of fact and thereafter the order be passed accordingly. 9. The order 21.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Saharanpur is hereby set aside and the revision is allowed as stated above. September 12, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 6046 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad