HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6701 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 28 of 2020 (State Vs. Vijay and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 310 of 2017 whereby, the revisionist has been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 308, 506 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that four witnesses have been examined in the present case. However, the testimonies of four witnesses are contradictory in itself and so far as other accused persons are concerned, they have already been chargesheeted in the said case. However, the prospective accused, the revisionist herein, was dropped in the said charge sheet. Subsequent to the framing of charge, four witnesses have been examined and based on their testimony, the prospective accused / revisionist herein has been summoned. It is further submitted that the learned trial court, while passing the order dated 01.06.2024 did not consider the testimonies of all the witnesses in detail and has passed the order in cursory manner. It has further been submitted that a detailed scrutiny of the statements of all witnesses reveals that the prospective accused, the revisionist herein has no role, whatsoever to play in the said incident, therefore, order dated 01.06.2024 is liable to be quashed and set Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Ashish Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditaya Kumar Kashyap, G.A., Manish Kumar Pandey Sanjay .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) aside. 4. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submits that, so far as four witnesses are concerned, they have named the prospective accused Sanjay, the revisionist herein, in their statements and have categorically stated that, apart from the prospective accused, other persons were assaulting the victim on the fateful day. These four witnesses are the eye witnesses of the alleged incident, therefore, they have witnessed the occurrence of the incident on the particular day. It is further submitted that even if, there are few minor contraindications in the statements, the same shall remain open to the accused persons to be taken up in later on, while recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the time of final arguments. However, at this stage, there is sufficient material on record to summon the prospective accused, the revisionist herein and prayed that the order impugned is in accordance with law. No interference is required by this Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as well as learned A.G.A., at least, four witnesses have been examined and these are eye witnesses of the incident as well. The said witnesses have named the prospective accused, the revisionist herein, in their testimonies respectively. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after due consideration of the matter and examining the testimonies of the witnesses has passed the said order, which calls no interference, as it has been passed in accordance with law. No other opinion has been expressed on the merits of the case. 6. The revision is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. However, it shall remain open to the revisionist to assail all such grounds during the course of trial. September 25, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 6701 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad