Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) THIS revision is disposed of at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the summoning order has been passed on the application and the appeal is being held as a State case, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was not a party and he may be permitted to delete the name of the respondent No. 2 from the array of the party. The learned counsel for the revisionist is permitted to delete the name of the respondent No. 2 from the array of the parties. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(3.) THIS is a revision against the order dated 9.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 5, Firozabad in Session Trial No. 432 of 2006, State v. Raju and others. It appears in the aforesaid Session Trial, 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined. An application for summoning the revisionist and other persons was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found a prima facie case against the revisionist Smt. Guddi Devi and other co- accused, namely, Adal Singh, Satya Prakash and Smt. Reshma Devi under Sections 147,302 and 120B I.P.C. and accordingly summoned them as accused.;