IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT SMT. TULSI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No.1624 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated November 3, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2008 by which charges were framed against accused petitioners under sections 148, 341, 323, 308, or 308 read with section 149 IPC. Date of Order : January 15, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Vinit Kumar Dixit for Mr. S.S.sunda for the for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated November 3, 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2008 by which charges were framed against accused petitioners under sections 148, 341, 323, 308, sor 308 read with section 149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on August 28, 2007 at 11.45 p.m. a written report was loldged by the complainant Phool Chand at Police Station Gudha Gorji regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day. It was alleged in the report that on 28.8.08 at about 9. 30 p.m. the complainant alongwith his father were going to their house from their plot then in the way Kishan, Prabhu, Ashok, Amar Chand, Santosh and Tulsi stopped them and caused axe blow on the head of father of complainant. After sustaining injury his father Narayan Mal fell down then accused Dinesh Kumar tried to inflict an injury which the complainant saved himself by raising his hand. It has been further alleged in the report that Amar Chand caused a lathi blow on the person of his father, thereafter the complainant was not in a position to see that who had caused injuyry on their person. After hearing hue and cry one Prakash and Kailash came there and they saved them. On the basis of this written report, the police registered FIR No. 261 of 2007 for offence under sections 143, 341, and 323 IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, and 325 IPC. in the court of lJudicial Magistrate Udaipurwati. In regard to same incident a cross case was also lodged on the basis of Parcha Bayan of Amar Chand against the members of the complainant party herein. It was stated in the Parcha Bayan that on 28.8.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. the members of complainant party came at the residence of the accused party after forming an unlawful assembly with an intention to kill them. The members of the complainant party gave beating to the members of the accused party. On the basis of above mentioned parch bayan the police registered a criminl case agaisnt the members of the complainant party for offence under sections 143, 341 and 323 IPC and after completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the members of the complainant party for offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 427, 452 and 308 IPC. The cross case lodged by the accused party against the members of the complainant party was being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the Judical Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for trial. It was averred that the case pending against the petitioners was triable by the Magistrate but since the cross case arising out of same incident was triable by Court of Sessions the case pending against the accused petitioners was also committed to the Court of Sessions for trial i.e. in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.2 Jhunjhunu. The trial court after hearing arguments on charge, vide order dated November 3, 2008 framed charge against the accused petitiones for offence under sections 148, 341, 323, 308 or 308 read with section 149 IPC. Hence this revision petition. 3. Mr. Vinit Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners from the bare perusal of the FIR as well as from the evidence on record during investigation nor the petitioners have committed any such alleged offence. From the side of the complainant party two persons sustained injuries i.e. Narayan Ram sustained four injuries and injury No.2 was advised for x-ray and after x-ray examination injury No.2 was found grievous. Injury No.2 was defused swelling on left fore arm. The second injured is Phool Chand who sustained simple injuries by blunt weapon. It is clear that two persons from the side of the complainant party sustained injuries out of them Narayan sustained a grievous injury on his left fore arm. It is submitted that the doctor did not find any grievous injurty on any vital part of body of the injured persons. No material is available on record aginst the petitioners and further there is no such injury so that the offence under section 308 or 308/149 IPC is made out against the petitioners. Two persons from the side of the complainant party received injuries and one of the injuries sustaiend by them was found dangerous to life or on any vital part and thus the petitioners deserve to be discharged from the said offence. 4. Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor argued that the trial court rightly framed the charges against the accused respondents on the basis of the material available on record. This court in revisional power should not interfere with the order framing charge against the accused petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the order passed bythe trial court. The order framing charge is just and proper and material is available on record to justify the order framing charge against the petitioners. Cross cases have been registered. 6. The Apex Court in Om Wati vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507 held as under : “ ... it would not be safe at this stage to deprive the prosecution in proving its case on the basis of direct evidence, the statement of the deceased claimed to be admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act and the other documents including the inquest report allegedly disclosing the infliction of injuries on the person of the deceased which resulted in his death. The acceptance of the opinion of the doctors, as incorporated in the post mortem report for the cause of death of deceased being hepatic failure following viral hapatites' cannot be accepted on its face value at this stage. Therefore the order of the High Court would be illegal and liable tobe set aside.” “ The Supreme Court reminded the High Courts of their statutory obligation to not to interfere at the initial stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protecting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for an unjustified litigation under the cloak of technicalities of law.” 7. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/