CHAMPA LAL DHAKAR Vs. NAVAL SINGH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 1.2.2008 in Criminal Revision No. 830 of 2007, by which the High Court has partly allowed the said Revision Application preferred by the respondents herein - original Accused and has set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court framing the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the original Complainant has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) That the Appellant herein - original Complainant lodged a FIR against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149 and 506/149 of the IPC. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in S.T. No. 197 of 2005 framed the charge against the original Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 451, 325/149, 307/149, 294/149 and 506/149 of the IPC. That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha framing the charge against the original Accused for the aforesaid offences, the accused preferred the Revision Application before the High Court, being Criminal Revision Application No. 830 of 2007. Having noticed the injuries sustained by the complainant and as it was found that no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has partly allowed the said Revision Application and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge with regard to framing of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC and has directed the learned trial Court to reconsider its order with regard to framing of the charge and take further steps in accordance with law. By passing the impugned order, the High Court was of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material on record, more particularly, the injuries sustained by the complainant, a charge under Section 325 of the IPC ought to have been framed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original Complainant has vehemently submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a manifest error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court framing charge under Section 307 of the IPC.