AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI, J. (Oral)
The petitioner says that on the basis of his statement, the FIR in question was registered and on conclusion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”) was filed. Consequent thereto, charges under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity “IPC.”) were framed against the respondents No.2 to 4. At least six witnesses were examined and thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for amendment of charges. The said application was dismissed on 04.09.2025. Aggrieved of the said dismissal, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court concerned. It was dismissed through an order Annexure P-2. Aggrieved of the said dismissal, the petitioner is before this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since an injury caused by an iron rod containing fracture was detected on person of the petitioner in his medico-legal examination, an offence under Section 326 of IPC was also made out against the private respondents but the application filed by the petitioner has illegally been dismissed and revision against such dismissal has also been illegally dismissed.
However, after hearing him and perusing the impugned judgment Annexure P-2, I find that while deciding revision petition filed by the petitioner, the sessions Court concerned observed as under :-
“10.After hearing the contentions of learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record carefully, it is the admitted case of the parties that final report against respondents/accused no.2 to 4 namely Mandeep, Akash and Deshraj was presented on 06.01.2018 for commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with section 34 IPC. It is also admitted case of the parties that charges were also framed against respondents/accused no.2 to 4 for commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with section 34 IPC, vide order dated 18.04.2018. The revisionist-complainant filed the application under section 216 Cr.P.C. on 11.03.2025 when the prosecution had already examined six witnesses, in the aforesaid case titled 'State Vs. Mandeep and others' bearing CIS no.CHI-99-2018 pending before ld. trial court, on the ground that ingredients of Section 326 IPC are also made out against respondents/accused no.2 to 4 and therefore, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC be added by the ld. trial court.
11.A perusal of the statement dated 20.11.2017 Ex.PW2/A got recorded by revisionist-complainant Kamesh to police, upon which, case FIR was registered shows that revisionist-complainant had allegedly received injuries on his person at the hands of respondents/accused no.2 to 4 on 14.11.2017 at about 11.30 The revisionist-complainant stepped into witness box as PW2 before ld. trial court and he has also proved his aforesaid statement dated 20.11.2017 as Ex.PW2/A. It is clearly mentioned in the said statement dated 20.11.2017 that alleged occurrence had taken place on 14.11.2017 at 11.30 p.m. Prosecution has also examined PW5 Dr. Ajender Kumar Yadav and he proved the MLR of revisionist-complainant as Ex.PW5/A. A perusal of MLR Ex.PWS/A of revisionist-complainant shows that he arrived in Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh on 14.11.2017 at 12.45 p.m. and he was medico-legally examined on the same day at 12.55 p.m. Therefore, the revisionist-complainant had been medico-legally examined after about one hour and 25 minutes later from the time of incident which taken place at 11.30 a.m. on 14.11.2017. However, a perusal of MLR Ex.PW5/A shows that complainant Kamesh had received six injuries and the probable duration of all the six injuries was between 6-12 hours. Therefore, the injuries mentioned in the MLR Ex.PW5/A of complainant does not correspond with the time as mentioned by complainant in his statement Ex.PW2/A.
12.. Ld. counsel for revisionist-complainant has vehementaly argued that respondents/accused no.2 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention had caused injuries to complainant with an iron rod and iron rod is a dangerous weapon and revisionist-complainant had received fracture in the right shaft ulna as per x-ray report Ex. PW5/B and therefore, charge under section 326 IPC is required to be framed against respondents/accused no.2 to 4. A perusal of the testimony of revisionist-complainant (PW2) Kamesh and his statement got recorded before the police as Ex.PW2/A clearly show that complainant had received an iron rod blow on his right hand when respondent/accused no.2 Mandeep had allegedly launched an attack upon him with an iron rod. The x-ray report Ex.PW5/B also shows that he received fracture in his right hand. Hence, complainant had not received any injury with iron rod on his head.”
On perusal of the said observations, I find myself not in a position to accept the prayer made by the petitioner in the petition in question. Rather, facts and circumstances of the present matter prima facie establish commission of the offences for which the respondents No.2 to 4 have been charge-sheeted in the same. Furthermore, the present petition has been filed against a judgment passed in revision petition. As per settled legal principles, a 2nd revision petition in the guise of inherent jurisdiction is not maintainable.
That being so, there is no substance in the present petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.