U.C. Maheshwari, J.@mdashLearned PL submits inspite his intimation, he is not under receipt of the case diary and seeks short adjournment to call and produce the same.
2. On the other hand, applicants'' counsel submits that this petition is preferred alongwith copy of the charge sheet and, therefore the question raised in this petition could be adjudicated even in the absence of the case diary on the basis of such copy of charge sheet.
3. In view of availability of the copy of the charge sheet on record, the case diary of the case does not appear to be necessary, hence with the consent of the parties, instead to hear this petition only on the question of admission, the same is heard for final disposal.
4. The applicants have filed this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order dated 10.2.2014, (Ann. A-1), passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Criminal Revision No. 07/14, affirming the order dated 29.11.2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 10545/13 framing the charges against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections, 294, 323/34, 324/34 and Section 506, Part-II of IPC.
5. It is noted that aforesaid Criminal Revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Court holding that the same is not entertainable and not after examining the order of the trial court on merits.
6. Shri Shashank Verma, learned counsel for the applicants, after taking me through the petition as well copy of the charge sheet alongwith the impugned orders argued that even on taking into consideration the entire case of the prosecution including the FIR and interrogatory statements of the witnesses and the MLC reports of the victim is accepted in their entirety, even then the offence of Section 324/34 of IPC is not made against the applicants and in such premises, the charge of such Section has been framed contrary to the Police Report filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. and the papers placed alongwith the same. In continuance, he said that the Sessions Court has also committed error in not considering the sustainability of the order of the trial court framing the charges on its own merits and committed error in dismissing the revision by holding that such court did not have jurisdiction u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. to examine the matter. In this regard he also said that so far framing of charge is concerned, such order was a final order at the stage of framing the charge and the same could not be deemed to be an interlocutory order and on that ground the revision of the applicants could not have been dismissed without examining the merits of case by the Sessions Court.
7. On asking the applicants'' counsel that in view of prima facie evidence in the charge sheet, how other charges framed by the trial court could be quashed or set aside, on which he restricted his prayer and said that in any case the charge of Section 324/34 of IPC as framed by the trial court be quashed by allowing this petition in part and till such extent, the orders of both the courts below be set aside.
8. On the other hand, Shri Akshat Namdeo, learned PL for respondent-State by justifying the impugned order said that same being passed on proper appreciation and assessment of the charge sheet is in accordance with law. It does not require any interference. However, in response of some query of the court asking that in view of nature of injury sustained by the victim and stated in MLC report and OPD ticket of the hospital annexed with the charge sheet, how the impugned charge of Section 324/34 of IPC could be sustained against the applicants as framed by the trial court, on which he said that although according to the nature of the injury stated in medical report and of the implement by which the aforesaid injuries could have been caused, as stated by the Doctor, the case of victim does not come under the purview of Section 324 of IPC but such question could be adjudicated by the trial court effectively after recording the evidence and, therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
9. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments at length, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as copy of charge sheet alongwith the impugned orders.
10. It is apparent from the FIR that in the alleged incident, the victim Indrapal Singh was allegedly beaten by the applicants by means of hand, feast and sticks and the same thing has been stated by the victim and witnesses in their interrogatory statements and nowhere it was stated either in the FIR or the interrogatory statements that any of the applicants was lashed with hard and sharp implement and caused any injury to the victim by such implement.
11. Apart from aforesaid, from the MLC report of the victim prepared on dated 16.11.2013 by some Doctor of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhopal, it is apparent that the victim did not sustain any external visible injury on his person, only he made complaint of some pain on the right hand in which no swelling was found. So in such premises, it was not a case of causing any external injury to the victim. If such injury, keeping in view the provision of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. defines simple hurt is examined, then it comes under the category of simple injury, which was not caused by any hard and sharp weapon. So in such premises, offence of Section 324 of IPC is not made out and it also appears from the record that after holding investigation the Police Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) was also filed by the authorities of respondent against the applicants only for the offence punishable u/s 323/34, 294, 506-II and Section 34 of IPC and not u/s 324 of IPC.
12. Inspite making efforts, I have not found any circumstance in the matter, on which the charge of Section 324 separately or r/w Section 34 of IPC could have been framed by the trial court. So in such premises, it is held that the charge of Section 324/34 of IPC has been framed against the applicants contrary to the record of the charge sheet as well as Police Report filed u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. So in such premises, by allowing this petition in part by setting aside the orders of both the courts below till the extent of framing the charge of Section 324/34 of IPC against the applicants is hereby set aside and till this extent such orders are modified.
13. So far other charges framed by the trial court are concerned, the same have been rightly framed and do not require any interference at this stage. Consequently till such extent the impugned orders are hereby affirmed. Till such extent this petition is not being allowed.
14. So far the question whether the Sessions Court was having the jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the trial court framing the charges u/s 397 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, in view of aforesaid such question does not require any consideration. Consequently such question is left open to decide the same on arising the occasion in some other matter. However, it is observed that so far the order framing the charges against the accused is concerned, at the stage of framing the charge such order becomes final and, therefore, the same could not be treated to be only an interim order.
15. The petition is allowed as indicated above.
