1 2025:CGHC:11529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 869 of 2025 Adarsh Bhattacharya S/o Shri Utpal Bhattacharya Aged About 25 Years R/o Subham Vihar B-1, Sector-2, Avanti Vihar Beside Virasat Apartment, Near Vijay Nagar Chowk, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Khamhardih, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohd. Fasal Khan S/o Mohd. Hanif Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Behind Nurebani Masjid, In Front Of Khatoon Manzil, Raja Talab, Civil Lines, City- District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocated For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07.03.2025 1. By way of this petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.09.2024 was dismissed and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur had framed the charges against the petitioner under 2 Section 294,323,506,324,326 read with section 34 of the IPC as well as Section 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that Mohd. Azal Khan lodged a report stating that his uncle’s son Mohd. Like and Adarsh Jagwani was having a dispute regarding some girl. On 12.05.2024 at around 3’o clock in the night Adarsh Bhattacharya and Adarsh Jagwani called him and asked him to come to Avanti Vihar in order to resolve the matter. Upon which he accompanied with Saurabh Das Gupta, Mohd, Anis, Mohd Azaz and Babar Khan in a car reached Avanti Vihar. When he reached along with his friends, Adarsh Bhattacharya along with his friends started abusing them and even started beating them with iron and hand and fist. When the complainant’s friend attempted to intervene, they too were allegedly assaulted by the petitioner and his associates, with injuries purportedly inflicted using fists, wooden sticks and iron sword. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned revisional court ought to have considered that the charges under the Arms Act are not sustainable against the petitioner, as there is no credible evidence linking the alleged weapon to the commission of the offences. The medical report does not indicate the use of a weapon capable of causing severe bodily harm, making the application of Section 324 and 326 of IPC, 1860 unjustified. For the reason that a nasal bone fracture does not amount ot grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, and mere allegations without forensic proof cannot sustain a charge under Section 324 of the Indian 3 Penal Code. Discovery of a steel knife and a bamboo stick cannot be attributed to the petitioner, as the entire property seizure memo stands impeached due to the testimony of two hostile witnesses, making it inadmissible in evidence. Hence on the above grounds the counsel for the petitioner prays to set aside the order dated 25.10.2024 and also order dated 26.10.2024. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that there are clinching evidences which directly relate the petitioner with the aforesaid offence and this cannot be set aside as the injuries sustained by the complainant and his associates are grievous in nature. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. On perusal of the charge sheet prima facie case is made out against the applicant as the incident took place on 12.05.2024 at about 3:30 AM and after one hour complainant had lodged a report in which he has specifically mentioned that the present applicant and Adarsh Jagwani called at Avanti Vihar where the present applicant started abusing the complainants and assaulted with the hand and fist using some iron swords and wooden stick along with other co-acused. And the same statement was also recorded by the complainant in their 161 CrPC statement. 7. It is evident from the medical report of the complainants in which Mohd. Annis nasal bone has been fractured and he was assaulted with the 4 sharp weapon. Therefore, in such circumstances offences under Section 326 seems to be rightly framed against the accused persons. 8. It is also evident from the charge sheet that the seizure of knife has been seized from the possession of the present applicant and there is sufficient evidence available on record of using said seized weapon by him. Therefore, the framing of charges under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act has rightly been framed and are in accordance with law. 9. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 04.09.2024 was dismissed and learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 294,323,506,324,326 read with section 34 of the IPC as well as Section 25 and 26 of the Arms Act is neither perverse nor illegal. There seems to be no jurisdictional error. Hence the present petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza