HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5172 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 5.8.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II (crime against women), Varansi in Sessions Trial No. 61 of 2017 arising out of case crime no. 514 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 325 I.P.C., P.S.-Shivpur, District- Varanasi whereby the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist/ informant was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that both the parties have land dispute which resulted into the murder of the brother of the revisionist. It is further submitted that the revenue case is pending between both the parties. It is further submitted that in respect of the land dispute between the parties some documents were obtained by P.W.3 Ram Pravesh Jaiswal but since the said documents does not fall within the category of 'public document' it was necessary to summon the Public Information Officer, Pindra as a witness to prove the aforesaid documents. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court illegally and in an arbitrary manner rejected the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid purpose. The order is perverse and illegal and warrants interference from this Court, hence this revision. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer. 5. From perusal of the record and after having heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA it emerges out that it Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Opposite Party(s) is an admitted fact that both the parties have a land dispute and some revenue case is pending between the parties. Since the papers in question are related to the possession of the present informant/ revisionist over the land in dispute but the said fact is an admitted fact as submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist, hence the trial Court found no necessity to take the aforesaid papers on record or to summon the Public Information Officer as witness to prove those papers and that is why the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court. Hence, no illegality was committed in passing the impugned order by the court. 6. In view of the above, It do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and it is dismissed in limine at the stage of admission itself. September 15, 2025 Fhd CRLR No. 5172 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad