Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3233 of 2021

Revisionist :- Chheddi @ Anita

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

Counsel for Revisionist :- Phool Singh Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the

revisionist, Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State and

perused the record of the case.

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist against the

order dated 29.10.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Court No.1, Fatehpur in S.T. No.840 of 2020 arising out

of Case Crime No. 140 of 2020, under Sections 304, 147, 148,

452, 323, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Husainganj,

District Fatehpur, whereby learned trial court summoned the

revisionist to face trial along with other co-accused persons

under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the present

revision has been filed only on the ground that the revisionist

was summoned by the trial court merely on the basis of

examination-in-chief of PW-1 Vinod Kumar, therefore,

summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. passed against

revisionist is bad, as without cross examination, the trial court

should not summon the revisionist.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality

in the impugned order, as the law is now well settled that even

on the basis of examination-in-chief, an accused person can be

summoned, therefore, there is no merit in the case and the

present revision is liable to be dismissed.

The only contention which was raised by the learned counsel

for the revisionist is that the revisionist was summoned only on

the basis of examination-in-chief of PW-1 Vinod Kumar,

therefore, impugned order is illegal as without cross

examination revisionist cannot be summoned. No other

argument was raised before this Court by the learned counsel

for the revisionist.

The examination-in-chief of PW-1 Vinod Kumar, which is

annexed at page no.88 of the revision shows that he specifically

disclosed the name of the revisionist along with other co-

accused persons, who caused injuries and law is well settled

that on the basis of examination-in-chief, an accused can be

summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Recently, the Apex Court

in case of Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another

(2021) 5 SCC 337 in paragraph no. 13.2 observed that from the

case of Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh and others Vs.

State of Punjab and others, 2014 (3) SCC 92, it emerges that

the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

even on the basis of statement made in examination-in-chief of

the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross

examination of said witness. Therefore, I find no illegality in

the impugned order dated 29.10.2021 and present revision is,

accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.12.2021

AK Pandey