HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6235 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. None is present for opposite party no. 2 even in the revised call. 2. This revision has been filed by the revisionists against the order dated 6.9.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Bijnor in S. T. No. 510 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 2022, under Sections-364, 302 IPC and Section-3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P. S.- Dhampur, district-Bijnor, by which application filed by the informant under Section 319 CrPC has been allowed and the accused (revisionists herein) have been summoned. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists have falsely been implicated in the said case and they have nothing to do with the case and they were not involved in the commission of the said crime, as alleged. He has further submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against one person, namely, Zunaid and name of the other accused were dropped during course of investigation. Learned counsel has further submitted that, as far as two witnesses have been examined in the present case and the testimony of two witnesses is not sufficient to summon the prospective accused. He has also submitted that other witnesses of fact have not been examined. Had the entire evidence of the witnesses of fact would have been on record, appropriate findings would have been arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act). He has further submitted that the testimony of P. W. 1 and P. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajiv Sisodia, Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Guljar And Another .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) W. 2 do not disclose any such fact, wherein the revisionist could have been summoned. 4. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 are sufficient to summon the prospective accused, as P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have categorically deposed that, there is an involvement of prospective accused (revisionists herein), therefore, they have rightly been summoned and are liable to be tried, hence prayed that no interference is called for by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is a matter of record that only two witnesses namely, revisionist No. 1 father of the victim and P. W. 2, who is witness at serial no. 10 in the charge-sheet, have been examined and apart from these two witnesses, witness Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are yet to be examined and they may bring on record sufficient material one way or the other and hence in the given circumstances, once the evidence of above witness is concluded, it shall remain open to opposite party no. 2 to move an application, seeking summoning of the revisionists herein. 6. In the circumstances, the order dated 6.9.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Bijnor in S. T. No. 510 of 2023 is set aside to the extent, whereby it has summoned the revisionists but the order relating to the juvenile accused is in tact. It is open to the informant to take up the matter at the appropriate stage before the trial Court once the testimony of the above said witnesses is complete. 7. Revision is disposed of accordingly. September 25, 2025 HR CRLR No. 6235 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad