HIGH COURT OF CiiHAT‘TISGARH, BILASPUR CRIMINAL.MI$€. PETITION No. 2912007 :PE’E‘ITIONERg 1. Kisam, Sio Govsrdhaxx, agai abeui 9. Sumitra Bai, Wio. Kisan Lai, ag€d 3. Anita, D/o Kisan L31, aged about 23 years. 4O yaar‘s, about 38 yams. A31 Rio Viiiage Bundda, RS. Shivrinaiayan, ’I‘ahsil Pamgarh, District - Jaajgr—Champa {C.G.} Vérsus State of Chhattisgarh Thxaugh : District Magistrate, Janjgir—Champa {(3. G.) ‘PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.1 gESPONimNT éjmgarance; Shn' N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Jitandra Gupta, Counsel {Gr thc pstm‘ozmrs. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawysr for the Staté. ORAL ORDER {27.96.2(307; gym. KUMAR SINHAg J. Heard. This petition is dimcted agamst the order dated 02.12.2006 passed in Criminal Revision No.12j2006 by the Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District — Jajljgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby, the said Court dismissed the revision tiled by the petitioners and confnmed the order passed by the Magisuate on 13.4.2006 in Criminal Case No.1V050/2005 (changed number— 139/2006), by which, the said Court had framed the charges under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons. 2 zrgg a we. Na. zg‘zgoigit g 372”A A The bxicsf facts are that the petitianers are the accused persons in the aforesaid criminal case. A charge sheet was tiled against them under Secu'on 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1t is stated that they had assaulted the injured namely Shyam Bai on 26/9/2005. After the incident, the complainantjvicn‘m was sent for medical examination and was also sent ibr X‘Ray Examination as per the advise of the Doctor concernecl. The X— Ray report would show that there was some fracture sustained by the victim. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the X—Ray report was obtained on 24. 10.2005 i.e. almost after about .27 days, it should not have been relied on by the Courts below and the charges under Section 325 of the EPC should not have been flamed and confirmed. Needless to say that such grounds are not available at the stage of Charge, because, if the contents of the renort are ' ' nmeaL A, _ . ‘ ‘ disbeheved on various grounds Lby the petitioners, that shalt amount to appieciating the evidence at the stage of framing of charges, which exercise cannot be done by the Court at that stage. In the opinion of this Court, the Courts below have not committed any error of law warranting interference by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge Shyna g