Criminal Revision No. 1598 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1598 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.06.2010 Ankur Sagar @ Babla Sagar ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Aliana, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner impugning the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra framing charge against him under Sections 363, 366 & 304-A IPC. After the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted by the investigating agency, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra framed charges against the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner was charged for kidnapping the minor girl namely Rimpi on 27.01.2010 with a view to force her to marry him and to have illicit intercourse. The petitioner was thus charged for the offences under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. Third charge was framed on the ground that on 27.01.2010 itself the petitioner caused the death of minor girl (Rimpy) by driving motor-cycle in rash and negligent manner. He was thus, charged for an offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, the present revision petition has been preferred challenging the framing of Criminal Revision No. 1598 of 2010 2 charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner as statement of father of the deceased (Rimpi) was self contradictory. According to him, no case of kidnapping was made out as the girl (Rimpi) had been taken for the purpose of solemnizing marriage. Learned counsel has further submitted that it was a case of love affair between the petitioner and deceased and thus petitioner has been wrongly charged for offences under Sections 363, 366 & 304-A IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Only factual contentions have been raised by learned counsel to assail the order framing charge. I am of the considered view that factual issues cannot be decided in revisional jurisdiction of this court. For deciding same, essentially some evidence is required to be led before the trial court. Scope of interference in order framing charge is limited. Learned counsel has not able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. I am thus of the considered view that there is no merit in the revision petition and same is hereby dismissed. June 28, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE