1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Suresh Chander Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1844/2009) Date of Order :- 05th October, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Anoop Dhand, for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar. By the former order, the learned Magistrate had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for framing a charge for offence under Section 447 IPC against the respondent Nos.2 to 4. By the latter order, the learned ADJ has upheld the order dated 28.08.2008. The brief facts of the case are that arising out of the same incident, cross cases were registered, FIR No.167/2007 was filed by the petitioner, whereas FIR No.168/2007 was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4. In the challan filed in FIR No.167/2007, the Police has included the offence under Section 447 IPC. However, subsequently the learned Magistrate has framed the charges only under Sections 323, 341 & 325 IPC, and has not framed a charge under Section 447 IPC. Therefore, 2 the petitioner had filed an application that charge under Section 447 IPC should also be framed. However, vide order dated 28.08.2008, the said application was dismissed and the charge under Section 447 IPC was not framed. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge. However, vide order dated 30.07.2009, the Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has expressed his anxiety that because of certain observations made by the Revisional Court with regard to the non-committing of the offence under Section 447 IPC, the trial court may not, subsequently, modify the charge and frame a charge for offence under Section 447 IPC. According to the learned counsel , the trial court should be free to modify the charge and frame the charge under Section 447 IPC on the basis of evidence which may be produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 28.08.2008 clearly shows that in the FIR No.168/2007, a charge for offence under Section 447 IPC has been framed against the 3 petitioner. Therefore, the issue, whether the charge for offence under Section 447 IPC should be framed against the respondent Nos.2 to 4, can be determined only after considering the evidence which may be produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. Therefore, it is directed that the trial court shall consider the evidence of the prosecution, and if there is ample prima facie evidence that offence under Section 447 IPC has been committed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, the trial court shall be free to frame the necessary charges against the respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is, hereby, clarified that the trial court should not be influenced by the observations made by the Revisional Court in its order dated 30.07.2009. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, disposed of. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-