Crl.R.No.3071 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R.No.3071 of 2010 Date of Order: 18.11.2010 Trived Goswami and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By filing the instant revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C, petitioners have assailed order dated 23.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby charges under Sections 186/332/333/279/114/307/34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 have been ordered to be framed against them. Learned counsel argues that against the petitioners-accused, who are friends and co-travellers of Sameer Puri, who was driving the vehicle, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. He contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given any cogent reason for accepting the arguments made on behalf of the petitioners and that there was no intention to cause death of anybody. It has come on record that all three friends (including 2 petitioners) were instigating the driver-Sameer Puri to drive through the nakas and run over the police officials, who signalled them to stop but Crl.R.No.3071 of 2010 #2# despite that they accelerated the speed of the car and had caused injuries to the police personnel and had also struck against the gypsy of the vehicle resulting into damage to the vehicle and injuries to the police officials. It is quite well settled on the basis of the material available on record that even the strong suspicion regarding involvement of the accused in the offence is sufficient to sustain the framing of charge by the court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. Dismissed. November 18, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE