E?-^^ ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPSR PetiUoner Cr. M.P. No. 493/2009 Shaarad Dhruva aged about 27 ycars, Gond S/o Bisaaoo Dhruva, Cultivator and sarpancha of Gram Pauchayat Bhiloiu PoUcc Statton-Naudghat, Police Chouki Maro, Tah. Nawagarha, Dist - Duig C.G. Versus Resuondent State of C.G, Throi-^h P.S. Naadghaat, Dist. Duig (C.G.). PBTITION U/8 482 OF THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURB, 1973. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Presenfc- Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Rajendra Tripafhi, P.L. for fhe State/respondent ORAL- ORDBR (Passed on 16/09/i2009) 1. This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) is for quashment cxf the order dated 12/8/09 passed by ffae leamed Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Beiactara iu Sessions Trial No. 68/2006 whereby teamed Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Bemetara has rejected the application ffled on behalf of fhe petrdoner under Sectioa 216 of the Code for alteration ofthe ehai^e ofSections 307 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 323 ofthe Indian Peaal Code, 2. Quashjnent is prayed on fhe groiind that without any pruna facie inaterial in the chai^e sheet and without auy priina facie inaterial in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution leamed Additional Scssions Judge (F.T.C.) Bemetara has fiamed the chai^e of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 307/34 of the Indian Pcnal Code aad has decUncd to alter thc approia'iate /i'^K^.••• \\ i'sSfS'' '•iis>'<gak t'ili'i^^^ f. ^^.1^/ ^ (^ chai^c of Section 323 of fhe Indiau Penal Code even on tfae application ofthe petitioner. 3. Leamed couasel for the parties are heard. 4. Order impugned, copy ofthe charge and ofher documents perused. 5. Leamed couasel for the petitioner argued fhat mitiatly the Court has fi-amed the charge agamst fhe petitioner without any prima facie inaterial aad even after recording the evidence court below has declined to alter the charge on the basis of evidence adduced ou behalfofthe prosecution. 6. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner furfher argued fhat the evidence adduced on behalf of fhe prosecution is sitfficient to fi-ame fhe chai^e of the offence punishable zmder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and not sufi&cient for fi'amiag fhe charge for ihe offence punisliable under Sections 307 or 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code the oaly iaserdon of stick ia fhe private part of the prosecutrix te not sufBcient for fi-aining of thc charge of Scctions 307 or 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learaed counsel for the petitioner also aigued that by reading the evidcnce adduced on behatf of fhe prosecution and placed reliance ou fhe inedical evidence. 8. On fhe ofher hand, lcarned counsel for the State/respondent opposed fhe petition and submits that Court below bas r^htty fi'amed tbe chai^e aad rightty dis^ssed fhe appUcation fited on behalfofthe petitioner. 9. Undisputedly fhe Court is empowered to alter the cliargc aad fiamed the appropriate cbarge at soty stage in aecordaace with thc provisions ofSeetioa 216 ofthe Code. In fhe prcsent case copy of . .,•';*' t1" t-f1'^ ( ^•/ J- the Pirst Information Report, medical evidence aad the ewidence recotxled dtuing fhe trial revcals that the petitioner assaulted Meenabai and others and inserted the stick in her private part and caused injuiy accordiag to fh.e stateiuent of Mecnabai doctor has examined Iier aad iajuiy has been stitehed she become luiconscious at the time of couunMsion of offence cven after feUing down her the accused persons assaulted her. The iasertion of tfae stick in fhe private part wtuch is adaiittedly a vital part and inay caused senous damages to fhe iutenial part of the body fe serious iajiuy and shows fhe iutention of the person causing such injuiy, The petitioner bas filed the appUcation at tfae stage of defence evidence, after cousidering fhe aiguiaeat Coiirt below had rejected fhe application, Takiag into coasideration the aUegation made ia the charge sheet and evidencc specialty relating to fhe iasertmg of fhe stick in thc private part of fhe woman, I do not find any iUegalily or infirmity ia the order inapugned warranting auy interierence in exercise of extraordinaiy inherent jurisdietion. However, pctitioner inay raise thcir grievances and defence at the time of final disppsal of the case. Consequently, fhis petitioa is liable to be disinissed aad it is herby dismissed at tbe stase of admission. 10. Durmg course of aigument learaed oounsel for the petitioner also submits fhat present complamant party are also faciag trial set to have been conunitted at the time ofalleged incident at fhe iustance of petitioner and same is pending before Addltional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara. v 11. Copy of the order be sent to fhe Additional Sessioas Judgc, Benielara and Additional ChlefJudicial Magistrate, Bemetara, they are directed to examine as to wheffaer bofh iucident are counter case and if the same are couater case then it is directed that necessaiy procedure be conipUed for trial and decision by same Court simultaneously. Petitioner is inay also take recoiirse of Sectiou 323 ofthe Code. 12. I.A. No. 01 is also dismissed. Sd/- T.RSharma Judge