Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Since both these revisions arise from one and the same judgment, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these Criminal Revisions is made to an Order dated 04.05.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No.162 of 2021 (FIR No.422 of 2021), State vs. Aas Mohammad and others, by the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, by which, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) filed by the informant and submitted by the prosecution has been allowed and the revisionists have been summoned.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit multiple arguments, but essentially it is argued that even the impugned order does not show, as to under what offences the revisionists have been summoned to face trial along with the accused.

5. Learned State counsel as well as the learned counsel for the informant admits this fact. But, learned Senior Counsel for the informant would submit that the order is in accordance with law.

6. Learned State counsel adopts the arguments made by lea