JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Power filed by Shri Jay Shanker Shukla for opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved the application for summoning the first information report as well as the injury report but the court below has wrongly rejected the said application by order dated 20.06.2015. It has also been submitted that for the just decision of the case, summoning of the said first information report and the injury report are necessary before framing of the charge. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner is delaying the proceedings and is not permitting the court below to frame charge. 5. I have gone through the order dated 20.6.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in which he has rightly come to the conclusion that at the state of framing of the charge, the defence evidence is not to be considered. Learned court below has also come to the conclusion that it is not the stage to summon any document in defence and the document in defence may be summoned at the time of defence evidence. 6. Learned court below has considered all aspects of the matter in detail and the findings are based on cogent reasons. 7. I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the order dated 20.06.2015. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.