IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 222 of 2011. Date of decision: 1.12.2011. Hari Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. Surjan Ram & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s H.S. Rana & Amrinder Singh Rana, Advocates. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This petition has been directed against the judgement dated 12.8.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 2008, 05 of 2011 affirming the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 2, Sundernagar in private complaint No. 200- 1/2007. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 1 had filed complaint under sections 147, 148, 149, 355, 434, 441, 504 and 506 IPC against the petitioner and 12 others. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar issued process. The pre-charge evidence was recorded and on 12.8.2008 framed the charge against the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… petitioner and others under sections 434, 323, 457, 506 read with section 34 IPC. This order was assailed by the petitioner and Prabh Dayal by separate revision petitions, which were dismissed by common judgement by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 12.8.2011. Petitioner Hari Singh has challenged the order dated 12.8.2011 under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of no evidence and the courts below have not properly construed section 245 Cr.P.C. while considering the case at the charge stage. PW 1 Surjan Ram complainant in his statement has named Hari Singh and has stated that he and others have committed the offence. PW 2 Luria Ram has also named Hari Singh etc. Similarly PW 3 Arjun Ram has also named Hari Singh for the commission of offence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted PW 3 Arjun Ram in his cross-examination has stated that boundary was not uprooted by Hari Singh in his presence nor he participated in the dispute. PW 1 and PW 2 have specifically named the petitioner for the commission of offence. The statements of PW 1 and PW 2 cannot be rejected in preference to the statement of PW 2 at charge stage and consideration of case under section 245 Cr.P.C. In view of statements of PW 1 and PW 2 the present case cannot be said to be a case of no evidence against petitioner. The case is at the charge stage and finer details will be considered during the trial. Both the courts below on the basis of material on record have framed the …3… charge. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out error of jurisdiction by the learned trial court in framing the charge. The petition has been filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., which jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate or revisional jurisdiction. There is no illegality in the impugned order. Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. December 1, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.