Advocates:
['YADVENDRA SINGH', '', 'ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY', 'G A']

Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 313 of 2022

Revisionist :- Bhudev Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Yadvendra Singh,Abhay Kumar

Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.

for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order

dated 6.12.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court

No. 8, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 421 of 2017, State Vs. Ajay

Pal and others arising out of Case Crime No. 95 of 2015, under

section 307, 324, 504 & 506 IPC, police station Sakrauli,

District - Etah. By the impugned order, learned trial court has

allowed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by

opposite party no. 2 - complainant and summoned the

revisionist for facing trial.

3. It is submitted that the accused was named in the FIR but

during investigation his complicity in the offence was not found

by the Investigating Officer and he was exonerated. No charge

sheet was filed against him. He further contended that during

course of trial 5 witnesses have been produced by the

prosecution and thereafter complainant moved an application

under section 319 Cr.P.C. and on its basis, learned trial court

has summoned the revisionist-accused. It is further contended

that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and based on

conjectures and surmises. Learned court below has illegally

allowed the application without perusing the evidence on record

and without considering the averments made in the FIR and

also the statement of witnesses recorded under section 161

Cr.P.C. and without considering the material on record. It is

further contended that the trial court not looked the evidence

recorded in the court but has also have looked the evidence

which has been collected by the Investigating Officer during

investigation by which the Investigating Officer framed an

opinion about false implication of the accused and submitted

final report as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

Hardeep Singh reported in 2009 AIR (SC) 483, in the case of

Bijenra Singh reported in 2017 SCC 706 and in the case of

Shiv Prakash, reported in 2019(3) SCC (Crl) 407. Trial court

has not considered the material collected during the

investigation while summoning the revisionist. It is also

contended that parameter for initiating charge and summoning

under section 319 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist-accused are

different and so far as summoning under section 319 Cr.P.C. is

concerned there should be evidence that accused will be

convicted, only when the order under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be

passed. Lastly, it is contended that trial court has failed to apply

its judicial mind and has passed the order in a very mechanical

manner.

4. Per contra, learned AGA contended that accused was named

in the FIR and there were specific allegations assigning active

role, but the Investigating Officer arbitrarily and improperly on

the basis of some affidavits filed during investigation has

exonerated the accused. During trial 5 witnesses have been

produced by the prosecution including complainant as well as

injured. In their statements they have narrated the complicity of

the revisionist-accused. The active participation of the

revisionist-accused in the incident has been established. So

there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

5. It is undisputed that revisionist-accused was named in the

FIR and there were allegations against him also in the FIR. No

charge sheet was filed against him. During course of trial after

examination of 5 witnesses from the prosecution side, on

application of complainant moved under section 319 Cr.P.C.,

revisionist-accused has been summoned to face trial by the trial

court. Learned trial court in the impugned order has mentioned