IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT NAND KISHORE VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.592 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated May 6, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2007 by which charges were framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under sections 323,324, 147, 149, and 307 IPC. Date of Order : January 15, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Mohammed Aslam for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Nand Kishore, against the order dated May 6, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2007 by which charges were framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under sections 323, 324, 147, 149, and 307 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Dungar Singh filed a complaint at Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur in the year 2002 whereby he disclosed the names of Jai Kumar, Gopal Lal Sharma and one Mr. Mathur to be the assailants. It was alleged that these assailants alongwith other unidentified persons came at his residence with some deadly weapons and assauled him as well as the other family members resulting in injuries to them. On that report the police registered FIR No. 75 of 2002 for offence under sections 397, 147, 447 and 34 IPC. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against Deepaak Choudhary @ Om Prakash, Bharat Pal Sharma and Rati Ram Raigar and investigation was kept pending under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submitted that the charge sheeted persons have been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated June 30, 2005. The learned counsel submitted that as far as offence under section 307 is concerend, the trial court gave a finding that the same is not made out as no one sustained any injury defined under section 307 IPC. The investigating agency submitted a supplemenatary charge sheet against the present accused petitioner and one co- accused Ravi Vashistha and the trial court vide order dated May 6, 2008 framed charge against the accused petitioner for the offences under sections 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, and 307 IPC. Hence this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Mohammed Aslam, learned counsel for the accused petitioner contended that the order framing charge against the accused petitioner is bad in the eye of law, against the material and evidence available on record and the same is even just contrary to the earlier view taken by the trial court whereby similarly situated co-accused have been acquitted by the order dated June 30, 2005. The petitioner was not named by the complainant but the trial court failed to consdier this importan aspect of the case and wrongly framed the charge against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. Mohammed Aslam. Mr. Shakhawat, argued that the trial court rightly framed the charge against the accused petitioner on the basis of the material available in the charge sheet and the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioner. Any comment by me on the merits is likely to prejudice the case of the accused or the prosecution. 6. The Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 7. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/