IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 59 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.5.2008 Naresh Kumar Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the charges framed against him by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 12th February, 2008. The matter was first listed on 10th April, 2008 and again listed on 1st May, 2008. Two adjournments were granted to the petitioner so that he could place on record the copy of the F.I.R and other statements so that this Court could adjudicate whether the charges have been properly framed or not. No such documents have been placed on record despite two opportunities having been granted to the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 counsel for the petitioner has stated that despite communication sent by him his client has not contacted him nor supplied copies of the documents asked for. Without perusing the First Information Report or the Statements recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C and under Section 161 Cr.P.C this Court cannot set-aside the order framing the charges. It is the duty of the party, who approaches the Court for quashing of charges, to place on record the material to show that the charges have not been properly framed. Since the material has not been placed on record, I have no option but to reject the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 23rd May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™