Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51691 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1656 of 2025 Revisionist :- Chunnu Lal Tripathi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 1.2.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C., Banda in Complaint Case No. 33/9/2024 (Smt. Vinita Vs. Chhunnu Lal & Ors.) whereby, the application filed by the revisionist under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge from the offences in question, had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., two witnesses of the incident have been cited namely Ramendra @ Ravendra and Duli Kushwaha. The Ramendra @ Ravendra, while giving his statement before the trial court under Section 202 Cr.P.C., had supported the version of the complainant and had stated that the revisionist was involved in the crime in question. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has further argued that another witness Duli Kushwaha has given an affidavit before the trial court, wherein he has denied the incident. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, relying on the affidavit given by Duli Kushwaha before the trial court, submits that no case is made out against the revisionist. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that Duli Kushwaha has yet not been summoned by the trial court as a witness and his testimony has not been recorded. Merely an affidavit of Duli Kushwaha had been filed before the trial court wherein he has denied the incident. Otherwise also one eye- witness cited in the complaint had supported the version of the complainant and had specified role of the revisionist in the crime in question. 6. Once the one eye-witness is supporting the claim of the complainant before the trial court, the revisionist cannot be discharged from the offences in question under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., as the definite conclusion in respect of the offences can be drawn by the trial court after recording of the entire evidence. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 1.2.2025. 8. Accordingly, this criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad