HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4502 of 2025 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Kripa Kant Pandey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. also perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed by the court of Session Judge, District Amroha by which the trial court has allowed the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. (Under Section 348 B.N.S.S.) and issued summon to Dushyant Singh as a witness in S.T. No. 205 of 2024 (State Vs Mandeep and another) Under Section 302, 34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act, related to Case Crime No. 19 of 2024, Police Station Mandi Dhanaura, District Amroha. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that witness/Dushyant was not named during investigation in the statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of Suneel, Faheem and Baghat Singh. When the statement of Suneel Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased, has been recorded before the trial court, first time he placed the name of Dushyant as witness. Thereafter, Dushyant was summoned by the impugned order dated 2.8.2025. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has contended that PW-3 Suneel Kumar has specifically mentioned the role of Dushyant in his additional statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Vivek Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kripa Kant Pandey Mandeep And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) his examination before the court. 5. In compliance of the impugned order dated 2.8.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Amroha, in S.T. No. 205 of 2024 (State Vs Mandeep and another), the statement of Dushyant is recorded as P.W-5. The copy of the examination-in-chief of P.W-5 Dushyant is filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in his counter affidavit. The learned trial court had provided opportunity of cross-examination to the revisionist. The matter relates with the heinous offence of murder. It is the obligatory duty of the prosecution to present his complete case before the trial court. There is no prejudice cause to the revisionist/accused, because he is having all the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 2.8.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Amroha is hereby confirmed. 8. The revision is accordingly dismissed. October 8, 2025 M. Tarik CRLR No. 4502 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad