1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Ram Gopal V/s. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1475/09 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401of Criminal Procedure Code Date of Judgment :: 09.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Mahesh Sharma for the petitioner. Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar PP for the State. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.09.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa, wherein the learned Judge has set aside the order dated 09.08.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the the Judical Magistrate had taken cognizance against the respondent No.2 to 14 for offence under Sections 146, 336 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in order to make out a case for offence under Section 336 it is not necessary to show that the injury should have been caused to the victim. According to the complainant, he was surrendered by 13 persons who were having 2 lathies and stones. When he tried to escape from their clutches, they pelted stones on him. Thus, action of the respondents was sufficient to endanger his life and personal safety. Therefore, prima facie, case under Section 336 IPC was, indeed, made out. Secondly, at the time of taking cognizance, the magistrate is concerned only with existence of prima faice case. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in quashing and setting aside the cognizance order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has considered the issue whether ingredients of Section 336 IPC are made out or not. The learned Judge has concluded that the complainant had alleged that he was surrounded by thirteen persons who were having lathies and stones and when he had tried to escape, they pelted stones at him. But, no injury report exist to substantiate his claim. The use of the words “to endanger human life” would necessarily mean an act which would cause death in the ordinary course of nature. However, in the present case, there is no evidence that the complainant had suffered even a simple injury. Therefore, the complainant cannot claim that his life was endangered. Merely because he was allegedly surrounded by the respondents, who were carrying lathies and stones, such a surrounding would not 3 “endanger his life” until and unless an overt act was done by the respondents. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the ingredients of offence under Section 336 IPC were not made out. In the result, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, there is no force in the petition; it is, hereby, dismissed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/