HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1056/2018 Puran S/o Shri Ramjilal Bawariya, age 40 years, R/o Salpury, Udhyog Nagar, Alwar Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through PP. 2. Mangilal S/o Shri Bhagwan Jatav, R/o Salpury, MI.A. Alwar. 3. Girdhari S/o Shri Mangilal, R/o Salpury, M.I.A Alwar. 4. Pholsingh S/o Shri Bhajni,R/o Salpury, M.I.A., Alwar. 5. Ravinder S/o Shri Bhajni, R/o Salpury, M.I.A, Alwar. 6. Dyaram S/o Shri Chajjaram, R/o Salpury, M I.A., Alwar. 7. Dhansingh S/o Shri Chajjaram, R/o Salpury, M.i.a., Alwar. 8. Jitender @ Jitu S/o Shri Jagan, R/o Salpury, M.i.a., Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harmeet Singh for Mr. Gurvinder Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in criminal case No. 1181/2016 by which a finding has been recorded that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the accused respondents and the case was posted on the next date for framing of charges against them for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323/149, 325/149 and (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1056/2018] 336 of IPC on the basis of finding of a prima facie case against the accused respondent under the aforementioned sections by the trial Court. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant petition seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the Trial Court. 3. Looking to the fact that the interim order dated 05.05.2018 is operating in the instant petition by which further proceedings of the trial Court have been stayed and thereafter more than eight years have been passed but no efforts have been made by the either side to argue the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to decide this petition on its merits. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR No. 172/2016 was registered against the accused persons with the Police Station Udyog Nagar, Alwar with regard to the incident caused by the accused persons against the complainant party, wherein several persons sustained injuries, and one of the injured, i.e., Ramesh, sustained a lacerated wound which was treated by the doctor at Civil Hospital, Alwar, who reserved his opinion and advised further expert consultation. Thereafter, a fracture of right Parietal Bone was found on the skull of the injured-Ramesh. The remaining injured persons except Ramesh, have not sustained any grievous injury on any vital part of the body. On the basis of the aforesaid medical report of all the injured persons, the police submitted chargesheet against the accused respondents for the offence under Section 143, 323, 341, 336 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar. At this stage, an application was submitted by the petitioner for framing of the charge against the accused (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1056/2018] respondents under Section 307 IPC but the said application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate based on the finding that the medical jurists have not observed that the aforesaid injury sustained by the injured-Ramesh is dangerous to life or sufficient to cause his death. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order on the grounds that the injured has not sustained any dangerous to life injury and that no such medical opinion has been given by the medical jurists or the treating doctor. It appears that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order and without proper appreciation of the injury report and the x-ray report, the order impugned has been passed. If the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the instant case was not one under Section 307 IPC, he could have examined it in light of Section 308 IPC. The provisions of Section 308 IPC deal with an attempt to commit culpable homicide and provide for the framing of charge for that purpose. For the aforesaid purpose, the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of the injury, i.e., whether the injury is dangerous to life or not, is not required. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case this Court deems it just and proper to remit the matter to the learned Magistrate for passing appropriate fresh order after hearing both sides. 7. The impugned order dated 31.08.2016 stands quashed and set aside. The interim order passed by this Court stands vacated. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 13.04.2026. (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1056/2018] 8. Since none present on behalf of the accused respondents and they are not aware about passing of this order, it is expected from the trial Court not to pass any order in their absence. In case, the accused-respondents fail to appear on the date fixed by this Court then a notice would be issued to the accused for hearing their arguments by fixing a short fixed date. It is expected from the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order as early as possible looking to the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2016. It is made clear that fresh order would be passed by the learned Magistrate without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court and pass the fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 9. Stay application and all pending application(S), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/42