Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27436 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 852 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Nisha Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Goswami,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. By means of present petition, petitioners have challenged order dated 23.10.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Revision No.77 of 2024 (Smt. Nisha Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as summoning order dated 23.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Jhansi in Complaint Case No.17538 of 2022 firstly to the extent of excluding respondent no.2 from being summoned for the offences under Sections 327, 354, 120B IPC and Section 5 of Immoral Trading Prevention Act and secondly to the extent of not summoning respondent no.3 in the said complaint case. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner preferred application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned against respondent nos.2 and 3 which was registered as Complaint Case No.17538 of 2022. After registration of complaint case, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the same as well as medical report and documentary evidences available on record, learned court concerned only summoned the respondent no.2 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and excluded the respondent no.3 vide order dated 23.12.2023. Being aggrieved with the said order, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.77 of 2024 and the same was dismissed by learned revisional court vide order dated 23.10.2024 which impugned the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the entire version of complaint which was also supported by oral and documentary testimonies available on record, clearly proved that respondent nos.2 and 3 both have committed offence under Sections 327, 354, 323, 504, 506, 120B IPC and Section 5 of Immoral Trading Prevention Act but without considering the said facts and recording any reasoning, learned court concerned only summoned the respondent no.2 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and excluded the respondent no.3 vide order dated 23.12.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that while adjudicating the revision preferred at the behest of petitioner against impugned summoning order dated 23.12.2023, learned revisional court has also dismissed the said revision without application of judicial mind over the facts and legal grounds narrated in the memo of revision and as such, both the orders passed by learned concerned court and learned revisional court, are unsustainable in the eye of law and the same may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition on the ground that both the impugned orders have been passed after considering the material available on record which are just and proper. 6. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties as well as perusal of the order impugned dated 23.12.2023, it is evident that learned concerned court after considering each and every aspect of the matter and the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as medical report, has rightly summoned the respondent no.2 only under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. In sofar as revisional order is concerned, the same has also been passed with the specific findings that no specific allegations have been levelled against respondent no.3 either by petitioner or the eye witness whose statement has already been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as such, no offence has been committed by respondent no.3. The law on the point being well settled that at the stage of summoning, a court is not required to make roving inquiry in the factual detail of the case and as such, it cannot be said that the learned court concerned as well as learned revisional court have acted without application of mind, the reasoning given by both the courts concerned, are just and proper. 7. In view thereof, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, it is made clear that liberty to prefer application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. will be available to the petitioner during trial. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad