HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Satish Kumar Saini .....Revisionist(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saquib Mukhtar, Sr. Advocate, Yawar Mukhtar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saquib Mukhtar and Sri Yawar Mukhtar, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist/complainant against the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2025 (Surmukh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of summoning order dated 29.5.2025/26.6.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 2000 of 2025 (Satish Kumar Saini Vs. Kehar Singh and others), under Sections 420, 406, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Fatehpur, Saharanpur.

3. The genesis of the present case is that regarding an incident dated 22.9.2020 which took place at 10.00 am, the revisionist/complainant had filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1454 of 2020 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur. In the said complaint, the revisionist has recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, statement of PW-1 and PW-2 were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C on 12.1.2021 and 12.3.2021 respectively and both the witnesses supported the case of the revisionist as stated by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

4. The learned trial court vide order dated 23.2.2023 passed an order whereby the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been summoned under Section 420, 406, 323 and 506 IPC to face the trial. Thereafter, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 instead appearing before the trial court has filed a revision being Criminal Revision No. 152 of 2023 in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisional court has illegally allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order dated 23.2.2023 vide order dated 27.7.2023 and remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the question of summoning afresh in the light of observation made in the revisional court's order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the said order dated 27.7.2023 has been challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 6447 of 2023 (Satish Kumar Saini Vs. State of UP and others), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 with a direction that the court of first instance or the trial court will decide the question of summoning of accused persons in the light of evidence appearing on record without being bound by the observations made in the impugned revisional order and take an independent decision in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in compliance of said order of this Court dated 20.12.2024, the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 again put up before the trial court and after perusing the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for the revisionist, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Saharanpur vide order dated 29.5.2025 has summoned the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 5 to face the trial. It is alleged that against said summoning order dated 29.5.2025, the accused/opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has again filed a revision being Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2025 (Surmukh Singh Vs. State of UP and others) before the learned Session Judge, Saharanpur, which has been allowed by the revisional court and the order of learned trial court summoning the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has been set aside and the matter has again been remanded back to the learned trial court to pass summoning order afresh.

7. The revisionist being aggrieved by the said order dated 23.12