..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1518 OF 2008 1. Shri Vijay Murlidhar Walve, & 2. Shri Vinayak @ Raju Raghunath Naik. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Girish Joshi, Advocate i/b. Shilpa G. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 22nd October, 2008. DATED : 22nd October, 2008. DATED : 22nd October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners are facing prosecution in R.C.C. No.754 of 2002 which is pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Nashik. In the said case, charge came to be framed against the petitioners under Section 323, 324, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the framing of the charge under Section 324 of IPC, this Petition has been preferred ..(2).. for dropping the charge under Section 324 of IPC or for altering the same to Section 323 of IPC. 3. I have perused the FIR. In the FIR it is stated that the accused persons assaulted the complainant with fist blows and kick blows. Thereafter petitioner No.1 assaulted the complainant on his head with great force with iron object. The complainant has further stated that petitioner No.2 threw a wooden log on the left eye of the complainant and the rest of the persons assaulted the complainant with belts. The medical certificate of the complainant shows that he sustained two injuries i.e. one CLW on the forehead and an abrasion on the left cheek. The weapons in both the cases, as per the medical certificate, are hard and blunt objects. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the weapon has not been seized during investigation. Thus, he has submitted that there is no material to show that the case is under Section 324 of IPC. The learned Advocate for the petitioners further contended that both the injuries are simple in nature and hence the case would not fall under Section 324 of IPC. ..(3).. 5. Section 324 of IPC deals with simple injuries caused by dangerous weapons or means. In the FIR it is clearly stated that a wooden plank and iron object were used to assault the complainant. The petitioner No.1 used an iron object and petitioner No.2 used a wooden plank to assault the complainant. Even though the weapons have not been seized during investigation, the nature of weapons as stated in the FIR and the nature of injuries would make the case fall under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the charge framed under Section 324 of IPC. The petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)