HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5364 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, Sri Sikendar B. Kochar, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2,3 and 8, Amit Kumar Singh, leaned counsel for the opposite party no. 6, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions / Special Judge, E.C. Act, Basti in Session Trial No. 20 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Anurag Tiwari and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 525 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District-Basti, by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the proposed accused has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, E.C. Act, without going into the testimony of two witnesses, i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 namely, Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Raj Kishor Tiwari has summarily rejected the application of the revisionist, though there was ample evidence recorded during the course of trial. He next submitted that in the present case, though two witnesses namely, PW-2 and PW-3 have been examined and both have categorically stated the involvement of the prospective accused persons in respect of the offence committed in Case Crime no. 525 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation, but dropped the name of prospective accused, though their involvement was prima facie found in the said case crime. The findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge that the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 is not sufficient at this stage, but summoned the prospective accused persons and passed the order, holding that other witnesses of fact are yet to be examined, therefore, after the examination of witnesses of fact, the application for summoning the prospective accused shall be considered afresh is against law. The said findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is contrary to law. He also submitted that despite being sufficient evidence as corroborated by the testimony of two witnesses, the prospective accused would have been summoned, by not doing so the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed illegality and therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.07.2024 is liable to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aushim Luthra, Gaurav Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Singh, G.A., Sikandar B. Kochar, Uma Nath Pandey Shiv Prasad Tiwari .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 8 has submitted that the testimony of the two witnesses as recorded during the course of trial is not sufficient to summon the prospective accused. He next submitted that even the witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 have not fully supported the prosecution case and therefore, summoning the prospective accused at this stage is likely to prejudice the interest of prospective accused, as other cogent evidence is yet to come on record, such as the testimony of other witnesses. So far as, the evidence of PW-1, Shiv Prasad Tiwari is concerned, he is not the eye witness and his testimony is totally based upon hearsay evidence. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is in accordance with the procedure and law and the opportunity has been given to the prospective accused by the learned Courts himself to the extent that, if the testimony of other witnesses of fact is complete, it shall remain open to the informant / complainant to move the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, an option is available to the informant to move the said application afresh as and when the evidence and testimony of at least witnesses of fact are available on record and prayed that the present revision is premature and is liable to be dismissed. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other material brought on record, this Court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity, hence, no interference with the impugned order is required. 6. The revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 5364 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad