Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129473 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3800 of 2025 Revisionist :- Manoj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Naveen Kumar Yadav,Pradeep Kumar Yadav,Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2. 2. The captioned criminal revision has been filed assailing therein, the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 01, Etah in Sessions Trial No.1090 of 2021 (State Vs. Prashant & Ors.) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the revisionist had been summoned to face trial from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 34 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that there exists serious contradiction in between the examination-in- chief and cross-examination of the P.W.-1 recorded before the trial court and therefore, the trial court without considering the cross- examination of P.W.-1 could not have exercised its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the revisionist. It has further been argued that the trial court, even in the impugned order dated 21.04.2025, has not considered the testimony of the P.W.-2. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 though have opposed this criminal revision but they have consented that since the trial court, without considering the cross-examination of the P.W.-1 and the testimony of the P.W.-2, had passed the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 therefore, this Court, without entering into the merits of the case, may simply set aside the said order and may remand the matter to the trial court for considering the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. afresh, within a fixed time frame. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist also does not have any objection to the aforesaid proposal. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and prima facie, I find that the trial court while exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has not considered the cross-examination of the P.W.-1 and the testimony of the P.W.-2 therefore, the order dated 21.04.2025, on its face, is unsustainable. 7. I further find that learned counsels appearing for the parties are in an agreement that the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 may be set aside by this Court and the matter may be remanded to the learned trial court for considering and deciding the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., afresh. 8. In view of the aforesaid consent given by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 01, Etah in Sessions Trial No.1090 of 2021 (State Vs. Prashant & Ors.), is hereby set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to the learned trial court for considering and deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., afresh by passing a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of one month from today. Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Manoj Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad