HEGH CQURT OF CHEATT!SQARH AT BILASPUR Cr. ME. No. 041’2906 PETITEONER Dr. Suresh Nehlani Versus RE$PONDEP§TS State of Chhattisgarh and others ORDER Post far O1 [0412898 Sd/- ‘ \ T. P. Sharma \ L, ‘ Judgei m HIGH CGURT, OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cg. my. No. 04/2006 ;n PETITION UNDER SECTION 4-82 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL ?R9CEDURE: (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present: Ms. Anju Abuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, P.L. for the respondent No. 1/ State. Shri Ajit Singh, Advocate for the responclent N0. 2. None for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Passed on 15‘ of April 2008) 1. This petition is directed against the order framing charge dated 15/6/2006 passed by lemed Additionai Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Trial N0. 175/2006, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, has framed the charge under Sections 365, 120('b), 323 8r, 324 of I.P.C. and transferred the case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, PETITIONER Dr. Sumsh Nehlani son oflate Panjumal Nehlani, aged about 49 years, resident of Gawshala road, KaJlwar Hospital, RS. Bhatapala, Dist. Raipur (CG). Varsus RESPGNDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through RS. Bhatapara, Dist. Raipur {C.G.). 2. Kishore Soni son of Uttamchand Som (Baldeo Soni), aged about 3O years, resident of Bajrang Ward, RS. Bhatapara, Dist. Raipur. 3. Sonu alias Abhishek son of Goverdhan g Prasad Pandey, aged about 20 years, Subhash Ward, RS. Bhatapara, Dist. Raipur(C.G.). Raipur under Section 228 (3) (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the code’). 2. Order impugled is challenged on the gound that trial Court has committed the illegality by not framing the charge against the non-applicants N0. 2 85 3 for the offences punishable under Sectiep 307 of the IPC. 3. Counsel for the parties heard, order impugmd and copy ‘ef of the charge—sheet perused. §. It iss‘ argued on behalf of the applicant that FIR was registered‘under Sections 365 8a 307 of the IPC. Non— applicant No. 3 was hired by non—applicant No. 2 for kiHing the complainant. He was abducted and assaulted by the non- applicant No. 3 with a View to cause his death. Matter was investigated and charge—sheet was nled‘ Trial Court has not considered the fact that complainant was assaulted by the non-applicant No. 2 with a intention to commit murder and failed to frame the charge under Section 307 of the IPC. 5. It is also submitted on behalf of the applicant that at the stage of framing Charge, trial Court was required to she whether there was prima facie material for commission of the offence and no detail scrutiny was required at this stage. According to the First information Report complainant was abducted and assaulted with intent to cause his death by non-applicant No. 3 in furtherance of an illegal agreement ;w 2‘3: with applicant No. 2. The fatal injury was caused on the Vital part i.e. head of ths complainant. Material available on record was sufficient for framing charge under Section 307 of the IPC. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the non- applicants that tm‘al Court after taking into consideration, the material available on record had framed the appropriate ‘4‘1‘ charge. _ 7 w i According to the charge—sheet complainant was called by the noniapplicant No. 3 on the pretext of treatment of his relative and while he was going for treatment the relative of non—applicant No. (i,- he was assaulted by hockey stick by non—applicant No. 3. Non—applicant No. 3 also told to the complainant that he was hired by non«applicant No. 2 to kill the complainant. The FIR was lodged, complainant was examined medically, one lacerated wound having dimension of 4 x 1/; x 1/2 was found on left parietal region along with abrasion. He was shifted to MMI Hospital, Raipur. After investigation the charge—sheet was filed. Case was committed to the Court of Session and same was received on transferred by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara. 8. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the evidence available on record specially the injury and its nature trial Court had framed the charge for the offence W @ punishable under Sections 365, 120(b), 323 and 324 of IPC but do not frame- the charge of the offence puniShable under Section 397 of the IPC. i 9. Considering the nature of injury and FER, I do not fmd any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Complainant may me agpropriate petition during trial under u t Sections 216, 319, 85 323 of the Code if so advieed. 10.‘ I do not find any ground for interference in the order ;p» impugned y at this stage consequently, the petition is dismissed? Sdl— T. P. ShaYE‘LLIf L/EE"; l /4/l /r