Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51116 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1627 of 2025 Revisionist :- Aditya Alias Vicky Alias Naveen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Tarun Jha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Tarun Jha, learned counsel appearing or the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 11.2.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaluan at Orai in S.T. No. 87 of 2019 ( State Vs. Roopnarayan) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326A, 506 I.P.C. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that it is admitted amongst the parties that there exists a civil dispute in between the parties and in that regard a civil suit is pending before the competent court therefore, the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that there is no evidence against the revisionist to connect him with the crime in question and therefore, the trial court while summoning the revisionist to face trial, in exercise of its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., had committed manifest error. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has argued that from bare perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. registered in the matter, it is apparent that there are two eye witnesses of the incident in question i.e. Harish Kumar Soni and Kapil and further both the witnesses have taken name of the revisionist and have demonstrated his role in the crime. He further submits that Kapil had been the victim of acid attack and he in his testimony, recorded before the trial court, had categorically stated that the revisionist was involved in the crime in question. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently argued that once the stand of the witnesses all along i.e. from the stage of lodging of the F.I.R. till recording of the testimony before the trial court had been consistent and they have deposed that the revisionist was involved in the crime in question, the trial court, while exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and thereby summoning the revisionist to face trial under Sections 307, 326A, 506 I.P.C., has not committed any illegality. 7. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with this criminal revision. 8. I find that the F.I.R. in the matter had been registered on 5.5.2019 bearing Case Crime No. 0214 of 2019 in Police Station Jalaun, District Jalaun under Sections 307, 326A, 504 I.P.C. and in the said F.I.R. it had been categorically alleged that the revisionist and his father have committed the crime in question. I further find that the witnesses including the injured witness Kapil have categorically stated, in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the revisionist was involved in the crime in question and further they, while deposing before the trial court, have also specified the role of the revisionist connecting him with the crime in question. 9. Once the witnesses all along have deposed against the revisionist by specifying his role in the incident, it hardly makes any difference that any civil dispute is pending amongst the parties as the pendency of civil dispute amongst the parties can give rise to both the possibilities i.e. due to the civil dispute the person can be falsely implicated and secondly due to the civil dispute, the person may commit crime to take revenge. 10. This Court finds that the order dated 11.2.2025 passed by the trial court is a well considered order and the trial court, after finding sufficient evidence and recording its satisfaction, had summoned the revisionist to face trial under Sections 307, 326A and 506 I.P.C. therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11.2.2025. 11. Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad