Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.9.2011 Dharambir .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.7.2011, passed by the learned court below framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 323, 325, 302 read with Section 34 IPC instead of Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC. It is a case in which accused- Dharambir (petitioner) allegedly deliberately run over the complainant's father and Bhabhi under Innova car with an intention to kill them. They sustained grievous injuries. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 307 IPC. However, one of the injured having succumbed, offence under Section 302 IPC was added. Initially, challan was filed, inter alia, under Section 304 Part-II IPC. However, subsequent thereto, supplementary challan was filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on the basis of further investigation carried out and the offence was sought to be diluted to Section 304-A IPC. The learned court below having framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 323, 325, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioner is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of material produced on record in the form of medical reports, experts' Criminal Revision No. 2027 of 2011 [2] opinion etc., it was a case of accident and not murder. The charge should have been framed under Section 304-A IPC, as was suggested by the prosecution in the supplementary challan and not under Section 302 IPC., as has been framed by the learned court below. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The learned court below has referred to the material produced before it in detail and came to the conclusion that charge under Section 302 IPC is required to be framed. It has rightly refrained itself from opining on the material produced on record by the prosecution as the same would have prejudiced the case of either of the parties considering that trial is yet to begin and the evidence is to be recorded. Even before this court also, the position remains the same. To appreciate the contentions being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, opinion has to be expressed on medical and chemical examiner's reports, which will prejudice the case of either of the parties. In case the petitioner has been charged under Section 302 IPC, the same does not prejudice the petitioner at this stage considering the fact that the case is finally to be decided on the basis of evidence, which comes before the court. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.9.2011 mk