HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 496 of 2025 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the recovered. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 5.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Court no. 3, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 1247 of 2020 (State vs. Sonu Sakka and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District-Muzaffarnagar, by which the accused persons / revisionist herein have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as prospective accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, initially the name of the revisionist was dropped during the course of investigation and chargesheet was filed against four accused persons only. He next submitted that during the course of trial two witnesses have been examined and the statement given by the two witnesses is not sufficient to summon the revisionist / prospective accused persons. The revisionist has been falsely implicated in order to wreak vengeance, therefore the order dated 5.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 5.11.2024 is in accordance with law and is based on the testimony of two witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the order under challenge has duly considered the testimony of these two witnesses and based on the same, the prospective accused persons / revisionist herein have been summoned. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Chandra Shekhar Pal, G.A., Sunil Kumar Yadav Sartaj .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Having heard the rival contentions and from the perusal of the order dated 5.11.2024, it can be seen that there are about 15 other witnesses and only two witnesses namely, PW-1 and PW-2, who are the eye witnesses of the incident have been examined. However, the other witnesses may also throw light on the incident. Other independent witnesses namely, PW-4, PW-9, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14 and PW-15 are remained to be examined during the trial, then it will have a wider perspective to come to the conclusion regarding involvement of revisionist herein. At this stage, the order of summoning is based on the testimony of two witnesses, is not sufficient, hence it is directed that the learned Sessions Court after completion of the above said witnesses, would be at liberty to pass a fresh order, if the matter is taken up by the complainant / opposite party no. 2 through legal course. 6. Under the circumstances, the revision is allowed. The order dated 5.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Court no. 3, Muzaffarnagar is hereby set aside as stated above. October 7, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 496 of 2025 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad