HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6221 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Neeja Srivastava, learned counsel for revisionists and learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / F. T. C. II, Kaushambi in Case No. 238 of 2014 (State Versus Danish and others), by which application under Section 319 CrPC filed by informant of the case, namely, Mahfooz Ahmad has been allowed and revisionists have been summoned. 3. Initially, an F. I. R. was lodged in which six persons were nominated as accused. However, on filing of the charge-sheet, names of the revisionists, namely, Zahid and Alimuddin were dropped by the Investigating Officer and chargesheet was filed against four persons. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charges were framed against four accused and the trial commenced and subsequent to commencement of trial, statements of two witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Mahfooz Ahmad and P. W. 2 Gayas Ahmad were recorded and in the meantime, the complainant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning the revisionists, who are prospective accused. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the order of summoning the revisionist is illegal and arbitrary and the same is contrary to the evidence on record and the trial court after going through the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Mahfooz Ahmad and Gayas Ahmad, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 respectively, has summoned the revisionists. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Neeja Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Om Prakash Mishra Zahid And Another .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that the summoning order is contrary to the record, facts and evidence led by the two witnesses and is totally based on suspicion and the case law, i. e. Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab (201) 3 SCC 92 held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as referred to by the learned Sessions Judge. He further submitted that as per the law settled on the point of summoning the prospective accused, the Court has to satisfy itself that in all probabilities if the evidence led is sufficient and if prospective accused are summoned, the same will lead to the conviction of the prospective accused, but in the present case, no credible evidence is available on record, hence prayed that order dated 29.10.2024 be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law, as the same is based on evidence and as per allegations made in the first information report. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further submitted that, as far as the testimony of the two witnesses P. W. 1 Mahfooz Ahmad and P. W. 2 Gayas Ahmad is concerned, the same is in tact and has supported the case of prosecution, therefore, no infirmity can be found in the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / F. T. C. II, Kaushambi. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that the accused, besides the revisionists herein, as per record available on file, are history-sheeters and further submitted that this is a case of double murder, wherein, there is direct evidence against the accused to be tried. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and the fact that the order dated 29.10.2024, which is under challenge, has been passed taking into consideration the testimony of two witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Mahfooz Ahmad and P. W. 2 Gayas Ahmad and besides those, there are 19 witnesses in all, including the witnesses of facts and formal in nature. 9. In the circumstances, it is too early to pass an order on the application moved under Section 319 CPC, inasmuch as only two witnesses have been examined and considered, whereas other witnesses of facts are remaining, particularly, P. W.-3, P. W.-5, P. W.-9 and P. W.-15, besides the witnesses of Panchayatnama etc., and the other witnesses formal in nature. CRLR No. 6221 of 2024 2 10. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the prosecution to produce all the relevant witnesses in order to bring the trial to its logical end. At this stage, the testimony of two witnesses is not sufficient to summon the prospective accused. 11. Hence, without going into merits of the case, it would be appropriate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge / F. T. C. II, Kaushambi may be directed to pass an order afresh by taking into consideration the testimony of remaining witnesses of fact, if examined or likely to be examined. 12. Therefore, it is directed that once the evidence of witnesses of fact, besides the evidence of present witnesses, is available, the trial Court shall pass an order afresh. However, in the facts and circumstances, the order of summoning dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / F. T. C. II, Kaushambi in Case No. 238 of 2014 (State Versus Danish and others) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Sessions Judge / F. T. C. II, Kaushambi to be decided afresh. It is made clear that the merit of the case has not been considered by this Court. 13. Instant revision is disposed of in terms of above. 14. It is expected that the concerned learned Sessions Court shall proceed for concluding the trial within a reasonable period of time without fear or favour and in an independent manner. September 12, 2025 HR CRLR No. 6221 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad