HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5422 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Dr. Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 through video conferencing, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant revisionist has been filed against the order dated 28.8.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Varanasi in Session Trial No. 367 of 2023 (State vs. Subhas Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 338 of 2022, under Section 326A I.P.C., P.S. Shivpur, District-Varanasi, by which the application moved by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and the prospective accused persons namely, Shatrughan Singh and Dhananjay Singh have been summoned to face the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the said order has been passed on the testimony of a single witness namely, PW-1, who is the informant and the cross-examination of the said witness has not yet been completed. He next submitted that the learned trial Court has passed the order in a cursory manner based on the testimony of a single witness that too, for examination-in-chief, which was not sufficient to summon the prospective accused persons. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the allegations made in the first information report are crystal clear and the statement made by PW-1 in examination-in-chief is also clear and stated that the testimony of PW-1 in examination-in-chief is sufficient, even if there is Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Anil Kumar, Ayush Mittal, Hemant Kumar, Udai Chandani Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dr. Vishnu Pandey, G.A. Shatrughna Subash Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) no cross-examination of the said witness, summoning the prospective accused. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the perusal of the order dated 28.8.2024, it can be seen that only examination-in-chief of a single witness PW-1 has been has been recorded and the cross-examination has not yet been completed. Moreover there are two other witnesses namely, Raghvendra Singh, the injured and Miritunjay Singh, the eye witness, who can throw the light on the entire incident and therefore, the testimony of a single witness that too for examination-in-chief was not sufficient to summon the prospective accused persons, the impugned order dated 28.8.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Varanasi is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside and the revision is allowed as stated above. 6. However, it shall remain open to the opposite party no. 2 to take appropriate proceedings when the testimony of injured Raghvendra Singh and the eye witness Miritunjay Singh is complete in the matter. (Harvir Singh,J.) October 13, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 5422 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad