Crl. Revision No. 2101 of 2010 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 2101 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.8.2011. Deepak Kochar .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 04.5.2010 whereby charge was ordered to be framed against him under Sections 323, 341, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR in question was registered under Sections 323, 341, 307, 148, 149 IPC bearing No. 201 dated 13.9.2006 at police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala. However, during investigation it transpired that the offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out in the present case and challan was presented under Sections 323, 341, 34 IPC. The injuries on the person of Crl. Revision No. 2101 of 2010 (O&M) -2 - the injured were declared simple in nature. However, now the charge had been ordered to be framed against the petitioner and other co-accused under Sections 307, 323, 341, 34 IPC. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, the accused had fired shots from their pistols and hence, charge was liable to be framed against the accused under Section 307 IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Although, during investigation the investigating agency was of the opinion that no offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was made out but a perusal of the FIR reveals that there were specific allegations in the FIR that the driver of the Gypsy had fired a shot towards the complainant from his pistol but the complainant had moved to one side and so the shot had not hit him. Thereafter, the driver had hit the complainant with the handle of the pistol on his head. Another shot was also fired from the pistol by the accused towards Manjit Singh but he was able to save himself as he had bent down. Thus, as per the allegations in the FIR, the accused party had come to the spot armed with pistols, lathis and base- balls. Prima facie there was sufficient material before the trial court to proceed against the accused under Section 307 IPC also. Although the complainant party had not suffered any fire-arm injury but the fact remains that the pistol shots were allegedly fired during the occurrence. The petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas, available to him, in his defence during trial. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Crl. Revision No. 2101 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 10, 2011 Gurpreet