Hon’ble Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.—Heard Shri Arvind Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State.

Present revision has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 16.6.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad in Sessions Trial No. 134 of 2009 (State v. Parvej Akhtar and others), by which the application 135B moved by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to face trial alongwith other co-accused has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist being complainant/informant in aforesaid sessions trial moved an application before the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 to face trial alongwith other co-accused, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 4.6.2011, against which a criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 24021 of 2011 was filed before this Court and this Court vide order dated 29.7.2011 had set aside the order dated 4.6.2011 with the direction that in case the revisionist moves an application alongwith certified copy of this order before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad within a period of 15 days, the matter shall be considered and decided expeditiously. It appears that in compliance of the said order dated 29.7.2011 passed by this Court, an application to summon the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 was again moved by the revisionist on 9.8.2011, on which the trial Court has observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the prosecution version and the statements of the witnesses during investigation are contradictory and some persons named in the FIR have been exonerated and others have been added in the charge-sheet, the Court is of the opinion that before deciding this application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the statements of witnesses regarding facts are necessary to be examined and accordingly the matter was fixed for evidence vide order dated 24.9.2011. It appears that against the said order dated 24.9.2011, the revisionist moved a criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 38596 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2011 with the liberty to the revisionist to file a revision against the impugned order. Thereafter, the revisionist filed a criminal revision No. 5384 of 2011, which has been decided by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2012 dismissing the said revision with the observation that the revision itself was not maintainable as the revisionist has challenged the interlocutory order. It appears that thereafter the revisionist again filed a criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 14056 of 2012 before this Court which has been allowed vide order dated 26.4.2012 allowing the said application and the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by the trial Court was quashed and the trial Court was directed to decide the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in aforesaid sessions trial by taking into consideration the evidence on record within a month from the date of production of certified copy of the order before it. It appears that the application 135B moved by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 has been considered and dismissed by the trial Court vide order impugned dated 16.6.2012 with the observation that the witness (PW1), complainant Haji Shafiq Ahmad is trying to conceal the truth and his statement appears to be mala fide against some persons and he is trying to save some person and in alternate wants to implicate others.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revisionist being son of the deceased had got lodged an FIR on 26.8.2008 at 8.30 a.m. in respect of the occurrence of the same day at 7.30 a.m. implicating Parvez Akhtar, Zafar Akhtar (opp