1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 1025 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 *** Mehar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Mahesh Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is questioning the legality of order dated 4.3.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari by dint of which after deleting Section 307 IPC against the respondents, the case has been transferred to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar for trial. The petitioner is the author of FIR No. 543 dated 19.9.2004, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. City Yamuna Nagar against the respondents. Initially, Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR, but subsequently it was deleted and the challan was presented under remaining Sections. The petitioner and others were also booked for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 IPC in the cross- version, the trial of which is stated to be going on. However, after presentation of challan against the respondents, aggrieved with the deletion of Section 307 IPC, he got instituted a private complaint wherein the respondents were summoned under Section 307 IPC besides other Sections and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. It is at the stage of hearing arguments on the point of framing of charges, the learned 2 Additional Sessions Judge, formed the opinion that offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and accordingly after deleting the same, as noticed above, transferred the case to the learned CJM for trial. Dis-satisfied with the instant revision petition has been preferred. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for framing the charges under Section 307 IPC, the sole criteria is not the nature of injury, but the intention of the accused has to be seen, which is apparent from the evidence brought on record by the complainant and sufficient to frame charges under Section 307 IPC. In the instant case, though Section 307 IPC was invoked by the investigating agency, but later during investigation, on receipt of opinion of medical expert, it was deleted. The view of the investigating agency has been endorsed by the Court below by taking judicial notice of the material on record, in view of the contradictory opinion of medical expert of a private hospital where initially the injured was treated as well as the Board constituted for the examination of the injured lateron. Thus, the court below has rightly formed the opinion that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not attracted and thus, rightly transferred the case to the learned CJM for trial along with other cases. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 12,,2009 Jiten