IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1819 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 16.8.2011. Bhim Rao ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated July 6th, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby petitioner was ordered to be charged under Sections 148, 283, 332, 333, 353, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and accordingly charge-sheeted. 2. On the statement of Nand Kishore, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Mujesar, Faridabad, First Information Report No. 289 dated July 26th, 2009 was registered in Police Station Majessar against Bhim Rao-petitioner and 23 others. It was alleged that on July 26th, 2009 at about 7.30 pm. in the area of Sector 22-23, Faridabad, petitioner caught hold of Nand Kishore by neck and exhorted his co-accused Narinder to kill him. Narinder caused injuries on the head of Nand Kishore. Police officials, photographers and a few residents also received injuries. Building of the Police Post was also damaged. 3. After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, by impugned order, Additional Sessions Judge, charge-sheeted the petitioner and his co-accused. Criminal Revision No. 1819 of 2011 (2) 4. It is first to be understood that this Court is not sitting in appeal. The revision petition is against the order of framing the charge. All that has to be seen is whether there was prima-facie evidence warranting framing of charge against the accused-revision- petitioner and whether there was proper application of mind on the part of the learned trial Judge or not? It is rather settled that niceties of the matter are not to be gone into at this juncture. 5. In sum, the impugned order is free from any illegality or even material irregularity and it does not admit of any interference. The impugned order is accordingly upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.8.2011. SN