Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3364 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Braj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State, Mr. Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 2. This Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the revisionist s against impugned summoning order dated 19.05.2025, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) FTC/J.M., Court No.2, District Bijnor, in Complaint Case No. 13482 of 2024, whereby the Trial Court has summoned the revisionists under Sections 323, 406, 504 IPC upon complaint case. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law, as on the same facts, opposite party no.2/complainant had lodged an FIR, in which, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the revisionists are facing trial before the competent court, therefore, on the same facts summoning of the revisionists/accused in the present compliant is against Article 21(2) of the Constitution of India, so it is hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy. 4. Per contra, learned AGA on behalf of the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is submitted that opposite party no.2/complainant failed to mention certain facts in the Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Braj Mohan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aditya Kumar Verma, G.A., Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, Rajesh Yadav Pranav Kumar And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) FIR, therefore, the complaint was filed and thus, the proceedings, on the basis of compliant, is not barred, as such, this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and upon a perusal of record, the admitted position is that opposite party no.2/complainant had lodged an FIR on the same facts, against the revisionists, and in that case, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending before the competent court. On the same facts, opposite party no.2/complainant has filed the present complaint, in which, after recording of evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have been summoned to face trial. A copy of the complaint and the FIR is filed along with this revision, a perusal of which shows that the contents of the FIR as well as the complaint are almost similar and as the revisionists were already summoned in the case lodged upon Police report, and subsequently, on the same facts complaint was filed and the revisionists have been summoned, therefore, Section 210 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 233 BNSS) comes into picture, which provides as under: “Section 210 – Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. (2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police CRLR No. 3364 of 2025 2 report. (3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code.” 6. In view of the above provision, the Magistrate was required to try both cases together, as if both the cases are instituted on a police report as provided under Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. As the earlier case is pending and not decided and the revisionists are not tried and punished for the same offence, earlier, so the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply to the present case and the submission on behalf of revisionists in this regard has no force. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that though there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order in summoning the revisionist in the aforesaid complaint, as it was not brought to notice of the court concerned that upon the similar facts, an FIR was lodged and upon police report, a criminal case is pending. But in view of the above, the next course to be adopted, by the court concerned, is to proceed in accordance with Section 210 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 233 BNSS) to try both the cases together, as if both the cases are instituted on the police report. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this revision is, accordingly, dismissed, however, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter further, in view of the observations made above, in accordance with Section 210 (2) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 238 of the BNSS). September 9, 2026 Subham CRLR No. 3364 of 2025 3 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUBHAM KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad