IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.169 of 2005 Vijendra Singh and Another … Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal and Another … Respondents Dated: July 24, 2008 Sri Sachin Panwar, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionists Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 9.8.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar in S.T. No. 498/04, State Vs. Vijendra Singh and another, whereby the order has been passed for framing the charge against the revisionists u/s 302/34 and 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC). 2. Sri Sachin Panwar, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant, are present. I have perused the entire material available in file. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Nitin Rana lodged a report on 4.3.2003 at 11.50 p.m. with P.S. Ganganaher Roorkee, stating therein that his father Raj Pal Singh was coming from Hardwar to Rookee by his Indica Car no.DL 8C–F–6768 and at that time he was standing below his house at Ramnagar crossway near Amar Dairy. At 10.30 p.m., when his father Raj Pal came out in his car in front of his house, soon thereafter, Younus (contractor) along with two other persons came in an Indica Car no. UA.08.4700 and shot a fire on the father of the complainant with the intention to kill him. Due to the gunshot injury, his father fell on the ground and thereafter Younus and his accomplice ran away. After that he took his father at Pal Nursing Home with the help of Harindra Singh and Sudhir and by that time police also reached at the nursing home. On the advice of the doctor, he took his father at Civil Hospital Rookee where his father died. It was also stated that some dispute was also going on between his father and Younus and his father was also threatened to his life by Younus. It was further stated that revisionist no.1 Vijendra Singh also threatened the father of complainant by taking side of Younus. Afterward the matter was registered and matter was investigated and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. On 9.8.2005, the learned Sessions Judge Hardwar has framed the charge against the revisionist Vijendra Singh, Sandeep @ Sanjeev and one Sanjay Pal for the offences punishable under sections 302/34 and 506 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 9.8.2005, the present revision has been preferred before this Court. 4. Sri Sachin Panwar, Advocate holding brief of Sri H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the revisionists has stated at bar that this revision has become infructuous and for this reason, he does not want to press this revision and prayed that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 5. Even otherwise I have perused the order-dated 9.8.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar. After considering the role assigned to the accused/revisionists in the First Information Report and the other material available in file, I am of the view that the Trial Court is justified in passing the order for framing the charge against the accused/revisionists for the offences punishable u/s 302/34 and 506 I.P.C. and I do not find any irregularity, incorrectness, or impropriety in the impugned order. In my opinion, the learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available on the record, has rightly passed the order for framing the charge against the present accused/ revisionists. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 24, 2008 Rajeev Dang