Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125999 Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6540 of 2024 Revisionist :- Yuvaraj Singh @ 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. By means of the present revision, revisionists have challenged the order dated 5.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Siddhartha Nagar, by which, charge under Sections-147/149, 323/ 149, 427, 188, 308, 325, 269, 270 IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Act, 1897 and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 have been framed against the revisionists Yuvraj Singh, Ashok Singh, Atul Singh alias Devendra Singh and Umesh Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has challenged the order dated 5.11.2024 to the extent that charges framed under Sections-308 and 325 IPC are not appropriate and the said order is illegal and arbitrary to that extent, as no case, whatsoever, has been made out under Sections 308, 325 IPC, because the said injury is not corroborated by the medical report in respect of the opposite party. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that another FIR No. 50 of 2024 has also been lodged against informant / opposite party and others. However, only informant has been made opposite party and other injured persons have not been arrayed as party in the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as far as FIR No. 49 of 2024 lodged against the revisionists under Sections 147, 149, 323, 427 and 188 IPC pertains to the same incident, which occurred between the parties, though it cannot be considered as a cross case but the incident in respect of which, both the F.I.Rs. being F.I.Rs. No. 49 of 2021 and 50 of 2021 have been lodged, pertain to the one and the same incident. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the charge framed in respect of Sections 308, 325 are not correct and order dated 5.11.2024 is liable to be quashed to the limited extent. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that only the charge has been framed but the trial has not yet commenced. 8. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that once the charges are framed, the trial is deemed to have commenced, no other separate order is required to be passed to commence the trial, except summoning the witnesses. 9. Since the charges framed under other sections are not under challenge and trial has commenced, the revisionists will have sufficient opportunity to defend their case by adducing evidence in their favour. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the view that so far as the plea of revisionists that charge under Sections 308 and 325 IPC are not made out under the given facts and circumstances of the case and as per report, the revisionists will have sufficient opportunity to defend themselves during course of trial. 11. Hence no interference is called for in the order dated 5.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Siddhartha Nagar. 12. The present revision is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 HR Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad