JUDGMENT :

SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal revision is filed to set aside the order dated 8.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 6, Bijnor in S.T. No. 192 of 2017 (State vs. Nand Lal and Others) in case crime no. 446 of 2016, U/s 323/34, 304/34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor.

3. In brief the facts are that an FIR crime no. 446 of 2016 was lodged on 08.07.2016 naming the applicants Ishwar, Nand Lal, Keshav and Ghanshyam. The allegations of the FIR is that on 08.07.2016 at 10:30-11:00 am, applicant-Ishwar, Nand Lal, Ghanshyam and Keshav started construction over the disputed land. The complainant and her husband and daughter Tannu prevented them from doing so, then all the four accused persons assaulted the complainant, putting him on earth, they assaulted him with bricks. Her husband received injuries in the stomach and became unconscious. The complainant and her daughter tried to save him then accused-persons assaulted them. They went away from there abusing and extending threats with death. The complainant took her husband to the hospital where he is under treatment. Initially the case was registered under section 323, 504, 506 IPC. Due to the death of injured, Section 304 IPC was added. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against three accused namely Nand Lal, Ghanshyam and Keshav. The Investigating Officer exonerated the other named accused Ishwar. During the course of trial, after examination in chief of PW-1 Savita Devi (complainant/injured) an application U/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant/ prosecution alleging therein that accused Ishwar is named in the FIR and complainant Savita in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C has assigned the same role to him as the remaining accused. The examination in chief of Savita has been recorded in the court, she is one of the injured witness. The complicity of the accused Ishwar is like other co-accuse persons, hence accused Ishwar be also summoned U/s 319 Cr.P.C. for trial. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 has allowed the aforesaid application and has summoned the revisionist accused Ishwar to face trial for offence U/s 304/34, 323/34, 504 amd 506 IPC.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned trial court has summoned the revisionist only on the basis of statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as examination in chief of the complainant. Without considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. has been relied. Hence the summoning order is illegal and arbitrary on the face of record and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons. No specific allegations has been levelled against any accused persons during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has collected the evidence to the effect that on the date of incident, the location of mobile number of the revisionist was not near the place of incident. The revisionist having two mobile numbers bearing nos. 8273535308 and 9568363773 and the location of these mobile numbers shown at Moradabad. After verification of call detail records, it was found that he was not present at the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of Munesh Kumar (principal of coaching centre) where the revisionist was studying and other independent witnesses namely Monu Kumar, Manjul Kumar, Ranjeet Singh, Munendra Singh, Krishna Kumar, Jitendra etc. under section 161 Cr.P.C. and they have stated that on 08.07.2016 the revisionist was present in the coaching institute from 9:30 am to 12 noon. During the course of investigation, evidence to this effect has come that on the date of incident, the revi