JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the order dated 21.5.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Varanasi in S.T. No. 1164 of 2021 (State vs. Srinivas and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 985 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Lanka, District Varanasi whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the O.P. No.2 has been allowed and the revisionists have been summoned to face trial of Case Crime No. 985 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Lanka, District Varanasi.

3. It has been vehemently contended by Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel that the order impugned is patently illegal and has been passed against the settled principles of law and as such is not sustainable. The learned Court below has erred in law in omitting to consider the settled position of law to the effect that to summon an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the evidence which has already been tested once during the course of investigation should not be the same and there needs to be something more to enable the Court to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revisionists are lawyers by profession and practicing in the District Court Varanasi and have been implicated only in their professional capacity. A dispute exists between the O.P. No.2/first informant and one Kripa Shankar Rai and the revisionists have been impleaded as accused only pre-emptively. It is also contended that the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the Court below is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S. Mohammad Ispahani vs. Yogendra Chandak and others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 226. Reliance is further placed on the decisions of the Apex Court reported in 2019 (7) SCC 806; 2019 (4) SCC 342 and 2017 (7) SCC 706. It is accordingly prayed that the revision be allowed and the order dated 21.5.2022 be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has opposed the revision by submitting that the order dated 21.5.2022 is just and proper and warrants no interference by this Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nahar Singh vs. The State of U.P. and another reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 291.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be apt to briefly state the facts of the case leading up to filing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party and the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the learned Court below. The genesis of the case between the parties arises out of an F.I.R. dated 20.9.2018 lodged by the O.P. No.2 at 4:42 hours in respect of an incident stated to have taken place on 19.9.2018 at 23:00 hours wherein it has been alleged that while she was coming back to her house from work 8 persons apprehended her in her car being driven by her driver. The eight persons incessantly fired at her vehicle in which both she and her driver sustained injuries. The O.P. No.2 has stated to have identified four persons (including the revisionist herein) out of the eight persons. The Investigating Officer on 20.9.2018 (i.e. the date of lodging the F.I.R.) recorded the statement of the first informant/Opposite Party No.2 in which the names of the revisionists were mentioned. On 24.9.2018 the statements of son, husband and elder brother-in-law were got recorded and none of the witnesses mentioned the names of the revisionists. The factum of the existence of long standing enmity with one Srinivas Singh (co-accused) was stated by the witnesses. On 21.10.2018 the statement of the injured driver of the O.P. No.2 was also got recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he also stated the names of the revisionists. On 21.12.2018 the Investigating Officer, on the basis of CCTV footage and mob