HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4403 of 2024 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. List revised. 2. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 4. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to allow the instant revision and to set aside the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi in S.T. No. 563 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Dhanari, District- Sambhal. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi dated 03.08.2024 is illegal and arbitrary, as much as the said order is based on the testimony of the two witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, namely, Ram Sevak and Dineshchand Yadav, respectively. It is further submitted that even the testimony of two witnesses has not been considered completely and only the examination-in-chief has been considered by the learned trial court while passing the said order. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav, Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sukhendu Pal Singh, Amit Kumar Verma, G.A., Gambhir Singh Chetendra And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that apart from the examination-in-chief, the learned trial court would have considered the cross-examination of both the witnesses and thereafter would have come to a conclusion, whether a case for summoning the prospective accused persons is made out or otherwise. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in the absence of sufficient evidence i.e. testimony of witnesses, the present order dated 03.08.2024 is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the order passed by learned trial court is in accordance with law and based on the testimony of two witnesses i.e. the father of the deceased and cousin brother of the deceased. It is further submitted that the testimony of the two witnesses is sufficient to summon the prospective accused persons. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and upon perusal of order dated 03.08.2024, it can be seen that two witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have been examined, whereas there are other witnesses i.e. Srivati w/o Ram Sevak, Avnesh s/o Ram Sevak, Umeshpal s/o Ram Sevak, Sunita w/o Umesh, Suman w/o Dinesh Chand and if those witnesses are also examined, they may also through light on the said incident and appropriate facts and evidence would come on record. Hence, having sufficient material in a wider perspective, the approach adopted may lead to an appropriate finding. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist also relied upon para 9 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Hetram @ Babli vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1155 which is quoted as under: "9. In the facts of the case, the occasion for considering the application under Section 319 of the CRPC arose after the cross-examination of the only eye witnesses was recorded. Therefore, while deciding an application under Section 319 of the CRPC, the Court must consider the cross-examination as well. If an application under Section 319 of the CRPC is made after the cross-examination of witnesses, it will be CRLR No. 4403 of 2024 2 unjust to ignore the same. The power under Section 319 of the CRPC cannot be exercised when there is no case made out against the persons sought to be implicated. In view of the omissions which are material and which amount to contradiction, obviously no Court could have recorded a satisfaction which is contemplated by Section 319 of the CRPC. It is impossible to record a finding that even a prima facie case of involvement of the appellant has been made out. " 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate that if the above said witnesses referred in para 7 above and as per the list of witnesses available on record i.e. P.W.-6, P.W.-7, P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 of chargesheet are recorded thereafter the learned Sessions Court concerned may pass the order in accordance with law on any application moved by opposite party no. 2. At this stage, instant revision stands allowed and order dated 03.08.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. 10. With the above said observations, the present revision is disposed of. October 15, 2025 Anjali CRLR No. 4403 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad