1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R MOHAN RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.699/2010 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner, Camp Dungargarh in Sessions Case No.01/2010. ............... Date of Order : 18th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.R.S.Choudhary for the petitioners. Ms. Chandra Lekha , Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The petitioners Mohan Ram s/o Dhanna Ram, Shiv Lal s/o Mohan Ram, Mamraj s/o Mohan Ram, Bhagirath s/o Dhanna Ram, and Mukh Ram s/o Ramu Ram, have filed this revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Addl. 2 District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner Camp Dungargarh , in Sessions Case No.01/2010. The brief facts of the case, are that on 23.07.2009, Head Constable, Ratan Lal, recorded Parcha Bayan of complainant Koju Ram of PBM Hospital, Bikaner , wherein the complainant stated that on 22.07.2009 he was going to his field and when he reached near the field of Mohan Ram, Mohan Ram along with his brother Bhagirath and sons Mamraj and Shiv Lal, stopped him and beated him with lathis and barchi due to which he sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of this report, the SHO, Police Station, Dungargarh, lodged an FIR against the petitioners and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, the SHO filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence under section 147,148, 323/149, 324/149, 326/149 and 308/149 IPC before the concerned Magistrate, who took cognizance against the petitioners and committed the matter for trial to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge . The learned trial court, framed charges against the petitioners for the above mentioned offences vide order dated 07.07.2010. 3 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Addl. District & Judge No.2, Bikaner, Camp Dungargarh dated 07.07.2010, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is only one fracture of the radius ulna of injured Koju Ram . Therefore, there is no evidence against the petitioners to frame charge under section 308/149 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments on the ground that for framing of the charge, only the injury report is not relevant, but the reading of the first information report, along with the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., and the injury report are to be considered for the same. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Koju Ram has stated that Mohan Ram and the other accused, caused several injuries on his body. In the first information report also, it is stated that the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons like lathi and barchi and as per the injury report there were 7 4 injuries on the body of Koju Ram. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used, merely because the lower court has a wrong view of the law or misappropriated the evidence on record. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice, with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case. Interference in exercise of the powers under section 397, read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., is limited only to exceptional cases, when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, or where the trial court has illegally passed the order. 5 In the present case , looking to the facts mentioned in the FIR, along with the evidence recorded during investigation, it cannot be said that the order of the trial court is perverse , illegal and suffers from impropriety. Therefore, the order does not require any interference. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george