HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3840 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material on record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 15.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in S.T. No. 38 of 2022 (State Vs. Butukeshwar and Others), summoning the revisionists, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 307, 504, 506 of IPC in Case Crime No. 05 of 2021, Police Station Chauri, District Bhadohi. 3. It is the matter of record that in the present incident, there are cross F.I.Rs. from both sides i.e. revisionists and the other party and, therefore, who is the aggressor cannot be decided in the revision itself. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that as much as, four PWs i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have been examined and all the PWs have stated the involvement of Ashu and Avnish, the revisionists herein. Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that at the time of incident both the revisionists were not present at the spot in Case Crime No. 05 of 2021. In the present revision, both the parties i.e. revisionists Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saurabh Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bishal Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Rajesh Kumar Pandey Ashutosh @ Ashu And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) and opposite parties have lodged F.I.R. against each other, as a result of some quarrel, that has taken place between the two children, those were playing cricket in the field. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case, and they were nowhere involved in the said incident. Learned counsel for revisionists has referred the statements of four witnesses namely Krishna Bind, Sanjay Bind, Siyaram and Phoolchand recorded during trial and the statement of these witnesses are contradictory in nature, does not support the case of prosecution, so far as, the present revisionists are concerned. Learned counsel for the revisionists has lastly submitted that the names of the revisionists were dropped in the charge-sheet and final report was submitted and only five persons are named and facing trial as on date. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted, that there is a cross version of F.I.R. against the revisionists and opposite parties, which is the matter of record. However, the involvement of the revisionists and other persons cannot be examined at this stage. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has further submitted that the name of the revisionists has falsely been dropped by the Investigating Officer, while filing the charge-sheet in the matter. However, their involvement is fully established by the testimonies of four witnesses, those have already been examined during the course of trial and prayed that the revision is liable to be dismissed. 6 Having regard to the fact that, though four witnesses have been examined, but still three other witnesses namely Prahalad Bind, who is a injured person and two other witnesses namely Ram Prasad Bind and Bachau Bind are the eye witnesses of the incident, those are yet to be examined or would have been examined by now. Hence, at this stage, testimonies of four witnesses is not sufficient to summon the revisionists. However, as and when, rest of the three witnesses namely Prahalad Bind, Ram Prashad Bind and Bachau Bind have been examined, their testimonies may throw light on the entire incident, hence, opposite party no. 2 shall be at liberty to move another application, may refer the same application moved under Section CRLR No. 3840 of 2024 2 319 Cr.P.C at appropriate stage. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in S.T. No. 38 of 2022, (State Vs. Butukeshwar and Others) is set aside. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the revision is allowed. 9. Interim order, if any, is merged in the final order. October 6, 2025 Vikram CRLR No. 3840 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad