ANWAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by VIASJ, Fast Track Court, Mandsaur in S.T.No. 68/2009 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner u/s. 148,341/149,307/149,323/149 and 506 IPC, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) In short the case of prosecution was that on 23/12/2008 at about 12.15 p.m. complainant Ranjeetsingh Rajput lodged a complaint against the petitioners who are 13 in number at P.S. Sitamau, Mandsaur to the effect that Yashpal Singh cousin of the complainant is having a boring machine. It was alleged in the complaint that Bhawarlal, Nathmaharaj, Baluram, Prabhulal went with the machine at village Chikla. In the village, another machine which is owned by petitioner No.9 was carrying the boring. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 9 asked Prabhulal that in village Chikla, only the machine which is owned by petitioner No. 9 shall operate and they cannot operate the machine in the village. It was alleged that at about 8.00 p.m. all the persons of complainant party went to talk with petitioner No. 9. It was further alleged that at that time petitioner No.9 attacked the complainant party along with his 25 companions who were armed with deadly weapons. It was alleged that in the incident Prabhulal sustained gun-shot injury below his knee while other accused persons assaulted Prabhulal and the complainant Ranjeet Singh by wooden stick, with the result they sustained grievous injuries. Upon complaint, case was registered. After investigation challan was filed and charge was framed, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that learned trial Court committed error in framing the charges against the petitioners under Section 307 and 307/149 IPC. It is submitted that no gun-shot injury was sustained by Prabhulal. It is submitted that because of professional rivalry a false complaint was lodged by Prabhulal and Prabhulal himself has submitted an affidavit in the concerned police station and also before learned Court below to the effect that a false report was lodged by him. Learned counsel submits that without taking into consideration all the evidence on record learned Court below has framed the charge, therefore, the order to the extent whereby the charge has been framed under Section 307 IPC deserves to be quashed. For this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 551 wherein Hon. Apex Court observed as under :-