Crl. Revision No. 3178 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 3178 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.8.2011. Udey Raj and others .......Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. V.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 16.11.2010, whereby the charge was ordered to be framed against them. Complainant Sham Singh son of Surjit Singh lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that on 14.5.2010 at about 6.00 A.M. he was going towards the cremation ground to answer the call of nature. He saw Dharminder, Govind, Mangu, Mahabir, Udey Raj, Vijinder, Guddu, Nitu and Krishan Pal giving fist blows to Amit Kumar near the fields of Sham Singh son of Bhulla Singh. Amit Kumar was saved due to timely intervention of the complainant, Jony and Dharam Singh. The assailants threatened Amit Kumar that they would kill him as and when they got a chance. At about Crl. Revision No. 3178 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - 6.45 A.M., when the complainant was passing through the street along with Khushal Pal, he saw that Rukhmesh had caught hold of Parveen from behind and Dharmender gave an axe blow on the left side of the head of Parveen. Dharmbir son of Bhishmber and Dharmbir son of Nathi also saw the occurrence. The complainant and Khushal Pal saved Parveen Kumar from the accused. The complainant had the suspicion that Amit Kumar had illicit relations with the wife of Bhim Kumar and due to this reason Dharmender had attacked Parveen Kumar with the intention to kill him. After presentation of challan, charge has been framed against the petitioners, Dharmender and Rukhmesh under Sections 148, 506 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and sections 323, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 reveals that the trial court was influenced with the fact that Amit Kumar and Parveen Kumar had been inflicted injuries by the accused. However, admittedly there is no medical examination of Amit Kumar on record qua any injury suffered by him. Complainant had stated that he had the suspicion that Amit Kumar had illicit relations with the wife of Bhim Kumar. However, Bhim Kumar has not been arrayed as an accused in this case, nor there is any reference qua relationship of Bhim Singh with Dharmender Kumar in the FIR. The trial court while framing the charges against the petitioners has not made any reference to the other evidence available on record qua the connection of two incidents which had been allegedly witnessed by the complainant. Although Amit Kumar and Parveen Kumar are brothers but that in itself is not sufficient to lead to the inference that both the occurrences had any connection with each other. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to set aside the impugned order and direct the trial court Crl. Revision No. 3178 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.11.2010 is set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE August 03, 2011 Gurpreet