'l^- \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR Cr.M.P.No.867 of 2010 Respondent 1. Gaurishanksr S/o Ram Bhagat, aged about 20 years. 2. Devsharan Das S/o Abhimany^ Das, sged about 25 yeara. 3. Mohan Yadav S/o Shankar Yadav, aged about 35 years. 4. Nand La! Khariva S/o Sukhan Khariya, aged about 18years. 5. Sukhisl Bhagat S/'o Devabhagat, aged about 25 years, 6. Kunwar Sai S/o Bihanu Sai, aged about 23 years. 7.' ChaRdrabhsn Bhagat S/'o Chhotan Bhagat, sg@6 about 18 years, 8. Arjun Bhagat S/o Johan Bhagat, aged about 20 years. 9. Phiran Nath Chouhan, S/o Ssniram Chouhan- ASI are resldent of vlilage Madhuvan, P.S. Bagbahar, Di^rict Jashpur. Vsrsus State of Chhattisgarh, through Poiice Chowki-Kotaba, P.S. Bagbahar, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present:- Mr. Shivendu Bhardwaj, counsel for the pet'rtioners. Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the Stats/respondent. Passed on 1S[ February, 2011) 1. By thjs petition, the petitioners have chaiienged isgailty & propriety of the order dated 16.6.2010 passed bythe Additionat Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Kunkuri, Sessions Division Jashpur in Criminal Revssion ^s. g '^S£^| j Y ^/ r^ ^ \ 2- No.17/2009, sffirming the order framing charge datsd 23.7.20)9 pas by the Judiciai Magi^rate First Ciass, Patthalgaon in Criminai Case No. 180/09 whereby leamed Judicial Magisfrate First Cisss has framed the charge against the petitioners fer ths offence punishable under Sections 294, 148, 326 read with Section 149 snd 506(6) ofthe LP.C. 2. As per copy of the charge shset and documents fited on behalf of the petitioners, aii petitioners gathered and caused iaoerated wound to one Narendra over his head of size 10 cm. x 2 cm. x 2cm. After compietion of investigatlon, chargesheet was fiied and the aforesaid chargeshave been framed sgainst the petitioners. Same was chaitenged before the revisional Court and vide order impugned the revisional Court has ciismissed the revision. 3. i have heard learnsd counsei for the parties, perused ths ordsr impugned and other documents fiied on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsei for the pstltioners submits that injury having dimension of 10 cm. x 2cm. x2 cm. who is not dangerous to iife and was nof grievous in nature, therefore, charge for the offence punishable under Section 326/148 of ths I.P.C. is not sustainable under the iaw and the materiai coiiected on behaif of the prosecutson Is not sufflcient for warrarrt conviction for the aforesaid offences in case the evidence adduced on behalfofihe prosecution is not rebutted. 5. On fhe other hand, iearned State counsel opposes ths petitton and submifs that injury of 10 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 cm. i.e., 2cm. depfh iacerated wound Itself is dangerous injury on the vitai part and the tria! Court has not commifted any i!!egailty while framing of the charge for< e offence punishabie under Section 148 ofthe I.P.C. siong with other offences. 8. Power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is excepttonai in nature and should be used ^iaringly. While deaiing with exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the matter of M/'s. Zandy PhanTiaceuticai Vtforks Ltd. and others v. Md. Sharafui Haque and others the Supreme Court has held thus, "8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the excepiion and not the ruie. The Sectlon does not ' AiK ^uuo su y confer any new powers on the High Court. it onty saves the inhererrt power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to givs effeci to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. it is neither possjble nor desirable to iay down any inflexlbie rule which wouid govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.........". Copy of the charge ^ieet reveals that the present petitionsrs have caused injuryto one Narendra and dimension of injury is 10 cm. x 2 cm. x 2 cm. Definiteiy, iacerated wound of more than %" i.e. 2 cm. depth over vita! part is dangerous injury snd by framing of the charge for the aforesaid ofrences the triai Court has not committed any iilegality warrantlng sny interference in terms of Section 482 ofthe Cr. D f 8. Consequently, the petition is liabie to be dismissed and it js hereby dismissed. _Sd/. r-p- Sharma lucfge •& /