Kashmir Nagar And 6 Others State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Revisionist(s) & Ors. v. Kashmir Nagar) & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad, in Special Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2025 (Shakuntala Versus Kashmir Nagar and Others), arising out of Complaint Case No. 44 of 2025 (Shakuntala Versus Kashmir Nagar and Others), under Sections 333, 117(2), 351(2), 311, 118(1), 324(4), and 325 of the B.N.S., Police Station Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, whereby the discharge application filed by the revisionists under Section 288 of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.) has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists filed the discharge application pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42740 of 2025 (Kashmeer Nagar @ Kashmeer and 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and another). In the said application, the revisionists had challenged the summoning order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (DAA)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad. The prayer for quashing was declined; however, it was provided that in case the applicants moved an application for discharge through counsel at an appropriate stage, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties, by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of filing of the application, if there was no other legal impediment. It was further directed that till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 04.11.2025. Hence, the summoning order remains intact and has not been quashed by this Court in the aforesaid application filed by the revisionists. 2 CRLR No. 703 of 2026

Learned counsel for the revisionists has further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., in the complaint, and in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. There is variation regarding the date of the incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place in September, whereas P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 have stated in their statements that it occurred in November. It is further submitted that the death of the buffalo was caused by pneumonia; however, this assertion is incorrect as per the postmortem report of the buffalo, which is on record. It is also contended that the present complaint is a counterblast to a previous complaint filed by the revisionists.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and contended that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, it appears that there are specific allegations against the revisionists. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42740 of 2025 filed by the revisionists for quashing the summoning order was refused, as mentioned hereinabove. The trial is yet to commence. The impact and credibility of the statements of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are matters to be assessed at the stage of trial. These witnesses were examined prior to the passing of the summoning order. The summoning order has already been affirmed by this Court, as it was not quashed in the aforesaid application.

In view of the above, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. The criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. February 19, 2026 M. Tarik (Abdul Shahid,J.)