Crl.Rev.No. 2216 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2216 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.8.2010 Gurbachan Singh and others ......Petitioner Versus Bhajan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 6.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jagraon, whereby the case was adjourned for framing of the charge against the petitioners and the order dated 24.7.2010, whereby the charge was framed against the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The relevant para of the impugned order dated 6.7.2010 Crl.Rev.No. 2216 of 2010 (O&M) 2 reads as under:- “After hearing arguments, I have perused the judicial file. Judicial file shows that in pre-charge evidence, the complainant has got recorded his statement as CW-4, Surinder Kaur examined as CW3. Harpreet Singh examined as CW2 and the complainant and his witnesses have suffered their statements that their statements earlier recorded in the court in this complaint on 23.8.2004 and 31.5.2003 be read as their statements in pre-charge evidence. In cross-examination, the learned defence counsel has reserved his right to cross-examine the witnesses in after charge evidence. In these circumstances, the court is of the view that by giving these statements, the accused have waived their right to take this objection at this stage. Hence, from the above discussion the court is of the view that a prima facie charge is made out against the accused. For framing of charge to come upon 19.7.2010.” Thus, in the present case, counsel for the petitioners had reserved his right to examine the witnesses after framing of the charge. In these circumstances, the order dated 6.7.2010 does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference. Thereafter, the charge was ordered to be framed against the petitioners as the Crl.Rev.No. 2216 of 2010 (O&M) 3 complainant had been successful in establishing that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners on the basis of the evidence led by him in support of his complaint. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE August 12, 2010 anita