Criminal Revision No. 2114 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2114 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.8.2009 Vijaypal and others .. Petitioners v. State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S. N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 8.7.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby in a revision filed by the complainant, charge was ordered to be ordered to be framed against the petitioners under Sections 365, 368, 326, 379 read with Section 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no material on record to suggest that any offence under the aforesaid sections was made out. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioners was well-reasoned and there was no scope for interference therein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Reliance was placed upon Dhian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) RCR (Criminal) 414. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the present petition. At the time of framing of charge, prima facie case is to be seen. There are allegations in the complaint and also in the statement of the complainant, on the basis of which prima facie charge under Sections 365, 368, 326, 379 read with Section 149 IPC was made out. Section 326 IPC was added considering the fact that Risal Singh had suffered fracture of patella bone of right knee and fracture of Ulna bone of right fore-arm. In fact, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners as such as on date, considering the fact that they are to face trial on account of charges to be framed against them by the Magistrate. If in Criminal Revision No. 2114 of 2009 [2] the process, merely certain more sections have been added, the learned Magistrate will consider the evidence led by the parties and the petitioners will be convicted only for the offences which are proved on the basis of evidence led on record and not merely on the basis of charge framed. The judgment in Dhian Singh's case (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioners for the reason that the issue therein was considered by this Court on merits after the accused had already been convicted and appeal rejected. Certainly at that stage, on appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court can opine as to whether the offence under any section is made out or not. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.8.2009 mk