JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun, Sri Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan and Sri Uma Shankar Tiwari, learned counsels for the revisionists, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deoband, District-Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2022 (Old S.T. No. 1402 of 2022), "State of U.P. Vs. Rakib and others" arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2022, under Sections 302/34, 452/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Badgaon, District- Saharanpur.

3. By the impugned order, the trial court allowed Application No. 9-Kha, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. presented by prosecution and summoned the revisionist no. 1, Bhura, revisionist no. 2, Lilla alias Mobin, both sons of Salamu, revisionist no. 3, Usman S/o. Bhura, revisionist no. 4, Saleem S/o. Lilla and revisionist no. 5, Inam S/o. Khalil to face trial under Section 302/34, 452/34 I.P.C. along with other co-accused.

4. The revisionists have stated in their ground of revision that during investigation, the Investigating Officer found that due to village enmity, informant had named revisionists as accused in the FIR but since no evidence was available against them, the Investigating Officer did not submit charge sheet against them.

5. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of eye-witnesses, Mursaleen, Ehsan and Arshe Alam on 05.03.2022. These eye witnesses specifically stated that accused, Rakib, Zulfequar Rana and Mobeen had committed the murder of Asif s/o Aas Mohammad. These accused also made confessional statements and recovery of weapon was made. The Investigating Officer charge-sheeted Rakib, Zulfequar Rana and Mobeen regarding involvement in the murder of Asif S/o. Aas Mohammad. The learned Trial Court without considering the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of eye-witnesses, Mursaleen, Ehsan and Arshe Alam, merely on the basis of examination-in-chief recorded on 08.09.2022 of PW-1 Rashid, summoned the revisionists for facing trial.

6. It has also been submitted by the revisionists that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial court should sparingly exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Higher quality of evidence is required than that of framing charge against accused but the trial court merely on the basis of examination of PW-1, Rashid, finding prima facie case, illegally summoned the accused.

7. It has been submitted that prior to the said incident, revisionist no. 1, Bhura, had lodged first information report against Rakib and others who happens to be the relative of present informant Rashid. That case is being tried by the learned trial court. Revisionist nos. 2 to 5 are witnesses of the said incident, therefore, they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

8. The revisionist has relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court in support of his contention :

1. Sagar vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7373 of 2021, date of decision 10.03.2022.

2. Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No. 290 of 2021, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6381 of 2020, date of decision 13.09.2021.

9. Per contra, opposite party no. 2/informant, Rashid has opposed the revision and supported the impugned order stating that the trial court relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and on the basis of the evidence on record, has rightly summoned the revisionists to face trial in the case.

10. It has also been submitted that the informant, Rashid and witness, Wasim has named the revisionists in the FIR but due to extraneous consideration, the Investigating Officer did not rely on the statements of them and on the basis of the statements of Mursaleen, Ehsan and Arshe