HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3592 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 to 9. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Ist, Hapur in S.T. No. 524 of 2022, State Vs. Vineet Urf Chintu arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2022, under Section 376, 323, 354Gha, 504, 506 I.P.C., by which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that, there is sufficient evidence on record, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge ignored the said fact in summoning the prospective accused persons. It has further been submitted that three witnesses have been examined i.e. p.w.-1 complainant, p.w.-2 Rajeshwar Singh and p.w.-3 Smt. Lokesh and on the basis of the testimony of all three witnesses, the prospective accused persons were liable to be summoned, whereas other accused persons are facing trial in the said case crime. It has further been submitted that after the completion of the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Balram Singh, Rabindra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Samarth Sinha, Vijay Sinha Km Ishita .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 8 Others .....Opposite Party(s) investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against Vineet @ Chintu only. The opp. party nos. 2 to 9 were dropped from the array of the accused persons. It has further been submitted that, so far as prospective accused persons are concerned, they were fully involved in the crime in question. But despite having sufficient material as corroborated by all the three witnesses i.e. p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3, the prospective accused persons have not been summoned by the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for opp. party nos. 2 to 9 submitted that there are variations and contradictions in the testimony of all three witnesses. The allegation of Section 376 I.P.C. has also been levelled against opp. party no. 2 who is a lady. The opp. party nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 are female and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that, while moving the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has tried to implicate one unknown person, who is likely to become of wife of Vineet in near future and submitted that the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the order impugned, it is seen that there are variations in the testimony of all the three witnesses i.e. p.w.-1, p.w.-2 and p.w.-3 and no credible evidence is available to summon the prospective accused persons i.e. opp. party nos. 2 to 9. The allegations made under Section 376 I.P.C. have been levelled against four females/ opp. parties and no categorical statement has been made with regard to the extent of involvement of female parties, inviting implication under Section 376 I.P.C., however, sweeping allegations have been made against opp. party nos. 2 to 9. Hence, in the absence of specific allegations, the role assigned to each and every opp. party, it would be difficult to summon the prospective accused persons. 6. In view of the above, I find the order impugned dated 12.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and CRLR No. 3592 of 2024 2 Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Ist, Hapur in S.T. No. 524 of 2022, State Vs. Vineet Urf Chintu arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2022, under Section 376, 323, 354Gha, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur appears to be in order and no interference is called for. The revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. October 6, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 3592 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad