DAYANAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 1.9.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No. 204/2005, affirming the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 411/2005 framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 336, 377, 338 and 379/34 I.P.C.

(2.) Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a written report at the Police Station, Hanumangarh Town on 4.4.2004 alleging inter alia that in the previous evening, at about 9:00 PM, the complainant along with his brother Dev Kishan was going from Hanumangarh Town to Hanumangarh Junction for attending a "Jaagran It was also stated in the F.I.R..that at about 9:00/9:30 PM, when the complainant and his brother were going on the road, suddenly a Euclyptus tree fell down on the road, they tried to avoid the same by raising hue and cry but could not succeed. The tree fell on them, due to which his brother Dev Kishan received head injury and the first informant also received injuries. It was also stated in the F.I.R. that on an inquiry being made, it was found that the tree had been cut by two persons employed and engaged by the petitioner Dayanand and as a result of their rash and negligent act, the tree was cut down in a reckless manner resulting into injuries being causes to the first informant and his brother. On the basis of the report, an F.I.R. No. 172/2004 for the offences under Sections 336, 337 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. was registered and the investigation commenced. The police, after conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and two others for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner, as stated above. The petitioners challenged the order framing charges by filing a revision petition, which too has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the charges and the subsequent proceedings pending against him in the trial Court in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioners was responsible for cutting of the tree in a rash and negligent fashion so as to justify the framing of the charges, mentioned above against him. He submits that in the F.I.R., the name of no eye-witness has been mentioned who has claimed to have seen the petitioner having the tree cut. He contends that even during the subsequent investigation, as improvement has been made by the prosecution and it has been projected that when the tree fell down on the complainant and his brother, at that time one Indica car was standing nearby and on seeing the tree falling down, the occupants of the Indica car, who were none else then petitioner Dayanand and his brother Murli Manohar, ran away from the scene of the occurrence. It is submitted that even if the said story is to be accepted then also it cannot be inferred that merely because of petitioner's presence at the scene of occurrence, it could be assumed that the tree was cut at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner is absolutely unjustified and the same deserves to be set aside.