IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No.1432 of 2010 Date of Decision:11.2.2011 Harminder Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which offence under Section 326 IPC was added. While impugning the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the first MLR of injured Sandeep Kumar, injury No.1 was declared simple in nature and injury No.2 was kept under observations subject to x-ray and later on same was also declared simple in nature. The injured got prepared another supplementary MLR on the next day and on the basis of said supplementary MLR, the offence under Section 326 IPC was added. The doctor did not follow the medicolegal instructions in which it was specifically held that Medical Board is required to be constituted for all medicolegal cases in which there is dispute about the report issued by the medical officer. It is further submitted that DSP after enquiry had opined that no offence under Section 326 IPC is made out. The Crl. R. No.1432 of 2010 -2- said report was not taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the MLR of victim Sandeep Singh was already on the judicial file and the victim was advised for X-ray of injuries No.1 and 2 as the same was attributed with sharp edged weapon. Thereafter, on the basis of X-ray, the doctor declared injury No.1 grievous in nature and injury No.2 simple in nature. Heard. The argument that the report of the DSP should have been taken into consideration for arriving at a conclusion as to whether offence under Section 326 IPC is made out or not, cannot be sustained. At the time of framing charges, the record has been perused by the trial Court. Two X- ray reports taken on 24.4.2006 and 25.4.2006 was before the trial Court. After perusing the X-ray reports, the Court came to the conclusion that injury No.1 having been declared grievous, offence under Section 326 IPC is made out. It was further noticed by the trial Court, a prima facie case under Section 326 IPC is also made out against the petitioner and no prejudice shall be caused to him by adding charge under Section 326 IPC as he would be afforded full opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses as well as the doctors and other witnesses. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the order dated 10.3.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which the charges have been framed. Moreover, at the time of framing charges only a prima facie case has to be seen. The arguments raised by the petitioners is a matter of defence. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers Crl. R. No.1432 of 2010 -3- (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 640 held as under: “10. After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied. 11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.” In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to raise all the pleas before the trial Court. However, nothing observed here-in-above shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 11.2.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE