CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 1. CRR Dr. Rohit Lalit and others State of Haryana and another 2. CRR Nishant Verma State of Haryana Reserved on Date of Pronouncement Date of Uploading: CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. adjudicate upon two connected criminal revision petitions, given that they both assail the petitions are detailed as under: 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) Dr. Rohit Lalit and others Versus State of Haryana and another CRR-1437-2025 Nishant Verma Versus State of Haryana and others d on: May 21, 2026 Pronouncement: May 29 , 2026 Date of Uploading: May 29, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate and Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate for the petitioners in CRR-2289 and for respondent No.2 in CRR Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. Mr. Nishant Verma, respondent No.2 in person in CRR-2289-2025 and for petitioner in CRR ***** GOEL, J. By way of this common judgment, this Court proceeds to adjudicate upon two connected criminal revision petitions, given that they the same impugned order. For the sake of clarity, the respective petitions are detailed as under: 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ....Petitioners ....Respondents ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate 2289-2025 and for respondent No.2 in CRR-1437-2025. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana. respondent No.2 in person 2025 and for petitioner in CRR-1437-2025. By way of this common judgment, this Court proceeds to adjudicate upon two connected criminal revision petitions, given that they same impugned order. For the sake of clarity, the respective By way of this common judgment, this Court proceeds to adjudicate upon two connected criminal revision petitions, given that they same impugned order. For the sake of clarity, the respective AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) CRR-2289- Furthermore, to maintain uniformity, the petitioners in the (CRR-2289 respondent No. Conversely, in CRR "complainant" and FACTUAL MATRIX 2. accused laying challenge to the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram ‘impugned order’) against the accused for offences under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201 and 34 of IPC. 325/ 331 of IPC revision petition is sought for. for addition of offences under Sections 307/ 379 arraigning challaned (charge 94 days in filing the revision petition is sought for. 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) (i) CRR-2289-2025, titled as State of Haryana and another (ii`) CRR-1437-2025, titled Haryana and Others. For the purpose of convenience, the facts are drawn from -2025 (hereinafter referred to as the Furthermore, to maintain uniformity, the petitioners in the 2289-2025) shall hereinafter be referre respondent No.2 therein shall be referred to as the ‘complainant.’ Conversely, in CRR-1437-2025, the petitioner shall be referred to as the "complainant" and the private respondents as the ‘accused.’ FACTUAL MATRIX The petition in hand (CRR-2289 accused laying challenge to the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram impugned order’) whereby it has been directed that charges against the accused for offences under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201 and 34 of IPC. The accused have, primarily 325/ 331 of IPC. Further, condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the petition is sought for. CRR-1437-2025 has been filed by the addition of offences under Sections 307/ 379 arraigning further accused, i.e., the accused challaned (charge-sheeted) by the police. Further, condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the revision petition is sought for. 2 as Dr. Rohit Lalit and others v. State of Haryana and another. , titled as Nishant Verma v. State of For the purpose of convenience, the facts are drawn from hereinafter referred to as the ‘petition in hand’). Furthermore, to maintain uniformity, the petitioners in the petition in hand 2025) shall hereinafter be referred to as the "accused," while ferred to as the ‘complainant.’ 2025, the petitioner shall be referred to as the the private respondents as the ‘accused.’ 2289-2025) has been filed by the accused laying challenge to the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram (hereinafter referred to as it has been directed that charges be framed against the accused for offences under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201 primarily, sought for deletion of Sections . Further, condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the has been filed by the complainant, primarily, addition of offences under Sections 307/ 379-B/ 149 of IPC as also for , i.e., the accused persons other than those Further, condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the revision petition is sought for. Dr. Rohit Lalit and others v. Nishant Verma v. State of For the purpose of convenience, the facts are drawn from ). petition in hand "accused," while ferred to as the ‘complainant.’ 2025, the petitioner shall be referred to as the has been filed by the accused laying challenge to the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the (hereinafter referred to as be framed against the accused for offences under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201 sought for deletion of Sections . Further, condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the complainant, primarily, as also for other than those Further, condonation of delay of AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 3. the petition in hand (i) under Sections 147, 149, Station New Colony, District Gurugram against certain persons including the accused (herein). (ii) following injuries were found upon the body of the complainant: (iii) Hospital, Gurugram sustained by the complainant, relev 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Shorn of non-essential, the relevant factual petition in hand is adumbrated thus: FIR bearing No.173 dated 27.08.2023 came to be registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 379-B and 506 of the IPC Station New Colony, District Gurugram at the instance of the complainant against certain persons including the accused (herein). As per the Medico Legal Report (MLR) following injuries were found upon the body of the complainant: “(1) Multiple contusion present on forehead. With XXX swelling on forehead. Adv: NCCT Head and surgeon opinion. (2) Swelling 4x4 cm on left side of Zygome (left) with contusions red blue in colour. Adv:- ENT opinion. (3) Swelling around R/L eyes present. Adv: (4) H/I nasal bleed present, C/o pain and swelling in nose. Adv: opinion. (5) Contusion and swelling on right Zygome region 2*3 cm. (6) C/o pain and swelling on left ear with contusion on ear. Adv.: Ear opinion. (7) C/o jaw pain and swelling on right angle of Mandible. Adv: Dental opinion. (8) C/o pain in left shoulder. Adv: Ortho opinion. (9) Pain and swelling 4*4 cm on left wrist and left hand. Adv: Ortho opinion. (10) C/o pain in right side chest. Adv: Surgeon opinion. (11) Contusions 6*10 on middle back with C/o pain in back. Adv: Ortho opinion.” The Police made an application to Hospital, Gurugram on 15.09.2023 for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant, relevant whereof reads thus: “To Medical Officer, GH Gurugram. Subject- Application for opinion regarding the injuries sustain victim Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of H.No.236 Ground Floor, Blossom 1 Sec-47 Gurugram. Sir, It is requested that on 27.08.2020, the above mentioned injured Nishant Verma was admitted to your hospital whose MLR No. is KS/2023/449 dated 27-08-2023. In which doctor has mentioned a total of 10 injuries. The documents, reports and discharge summary 3 essential, the relevant factual milieu of the lis in FIR bearing No.173 dated 27.08.2023 came to be registered B and 506 of the IPC at Police at the instance of the complainant against certain persons including the accused (herein). As per the Medico Legal Report (MLR) dated 27.08.2023, the following injuries were found upon the body of the complainant: (1) Multiple contusion present on forehead. With XXX swelling on forehead. Adv: NCCT Head and surgeon opinion. ng 4x4 cm on left side of Zygome (left) with contusions red – (3) Swelling around R/L eyes present. Adv:- Eye opinion. (4) H/I nasal bleed present, C/o pain and swelling in nose. Adv:- ENT welling on right Zygome region 2*3 cm. (6) C/o pain and swelling on left ear with contusion on ear. Adv.: Ear (7) C/o jaw pain and swelling on right angle of Mandible. Adv: Dental (8) C/o pain in left shoulder. Adv: Ortho opinion. ) Pain and swelling 4*4 cm on left wrist and left hand. Adv: Ortho (10) C/o pain in right side chest. Adv: Surgeon opinion. (11) Contusions 6*10 on middle back with C/o pain in back. Adv: Ortho olice made an application to Medical Officer, General for opinion regarding the injuries nt whereof reads thus: Application for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by victim Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of H.No.236 Ground 47 Gurugram. It is requested that on 27.08.2020, the above mentioned injured Nishant Verma was admitted to your hospital whose MLR No. is 2023. In which doctor has mentioned a total of 10 injuries. The documents, reports and discharge summary related in FIR bearing No.173 dated 27.08.2023 came to be registered at Police at the instance of the complainant , the (1) Multiple contusion present on forehead. With XXX swelling on – ENT (6) C/o pain and swelling on left ear with contusion on ear. Adv.: Ear (7) C/o jaw pain and swelling on right angle of Mandible. Adv: Dental ) Pain and swelling 4*4 cm on left wrist and left hand. Adv: Ortho (11) Contusions 6*10 on middle back with C/o pain in back. Adv: Ortho Medical Officer, General for opinion regarding the injuries ed by victim Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of H.No.236 Ground It is requested that on 27.08.2020, the above mentioned injured Nishant Verma was admitted to your hospital whose MLR No. is 2023. In which doctor has mentioned a total related AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) (iv) to the General Hospital, Gurugram for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant. given by the Government Doctor reads thus: ‘ (v) a private dental practitioner at a clinic operating under the name and style 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma have been received. The documents, reports and discharge summary related to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma are presented before you. Therefore, an opinion be given about the injuries susta which type of weapon was he inflicted the injury and what is the type of injury so that further investigation of the case can be carried out. Police Station New colony, Gurugram After reviewing the discharge summary provided by Pratiksha Hospital it was found that Injury No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8, 9, 10, 11 are Simple in Nature. Opinion regarding injury no.7 to be given by Dental Surgeon. Weapon –I Blunt for all injuries.” On 03.10.2023, another application was moved by the Police to the General Hospital, Gurugram for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by the complainant. Relevant of the said request and opinion given by the Government Doctor reads thus: “To PMO Medical Officer, GH Gurugram. Subject- Application for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by victim Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of H.No.236 Ground Floor, Blossom 1 Sec-47 Gurugram. Sir, It is requested that on 27.08.2020, the above mentioned injured Nishant Verma was admitted to your hospital whose MLR No. is KS/2023/449 dated 27-08-2023. In which doctor has mentioned a total of 10 injuries. The documents, reports and discharge summary related to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma have been are presented before you. Opinion regarding injury no.7 received by injured Nishant Verma is pending which injury no.7. Therefore, an opinion be given regarding the type of weapon with which he was inflicted the injury and what is the type of investigation of the case can be carried out. Police Station New colony, Gurugram Dental Surgeon on duty. MLR: KS/2023/449 Pt took treatment from Dental Makeover, considering loose teeth, Injury is simple in nature, Pt did not undergo X Ray. TMJ : opinion regarding Jaw Pain can’t be opined. This opined after receiving opinion from treating doctor. It is further the case of the complainant that he had approached a private dental practitioner at a clinic operating under the name and style 4 to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma have been received. The documents, reports and discharge summary related to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma are presented before you. Therefore, an opinion be given about the injuries sustained by Nishant Verma, with which type of weapon was he inflicted the injury and what is the type of injury so that further investigation of the case can be carried out. Police Station New colony, Gurugram Dated 15.09.2023 ischarge summary provided by Pratiksha Hospital it was found that Injury No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8, 9, 10, 11 are Simple in Opinion regarding injury no.7 to be given by Dental Surgeon. pplication was moved by the Police to the General Hospital, Gurugram for opinion regarding the injuries Relevant of the said request and opinion given by the Government Doctor reads thus: Application for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by victim Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of H.No.236 Ground 47 Gurugram. It is requested that on 27.08.2020, the above mentioned injured Nishant Verma was admitted to your hospital whose MLR No. is 2023. In which doctor has mentioned a total of 10 injuries. The documents, reports and discharge summary related to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma have been received and are presented before you. Opinion regarding injury no.7 received by injured Nishant Verma is pending which injury no.7. Therefore, an opinion be given regarding the type of weapon with which he was inflicted the injury and what is the type of injury so that further investigation of the case can be carried out. Police Station New colony, Gurugram Dated 3.10.2023 Pt took treatment from Dental Makeover, considering loose teeth, Injury simple in nature, Pt did not undergo X Ray. TMJ : opinion regarding Jaw Pain can’t be opined. This opined after receiving opinion from treating doctor. Sd/- 3/10/23” It is further the case of the complainant that he had approached a private dental practitioner at a clinic operating under the name and style to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma have been received. The documents, reports and discharge summary related to the treatment of the injured Nishant Verma are presented before you. Therefore, an ined by Nishant Verma, with which type of weapon was he inflicted the injury and what is the type of ischarge summary provided by Pratiksha Hospital it was found that Injury No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8, 9, 10, 11 are Simple in pplication was moved by the Police to the General Hospital, Gurugram for opinion regarding the injuries Relevant of the said request and opinion Application for opinion regarding the injuries sustained by victim Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of H.No.236 Ground It is requested that on 27.08.2020, the above mentioned injured Nishant Verma was admitted to your hospital whose MLR No. is 2023. In which doctor has mentioned a total of 10 injuries. The documents, reports and discharge summary related received and are presented before you. Opinion regarding injury no.7 received by injured Nishant Verma is pending which injury no.7. Therefore, an opinion be given regarding the type of weapon with which he was injury so that further Pt took treatment from Dental Makeover, considering loose teeth, Injury It is further the case of the complainant that he had approached a private dental practitioner at a clinic operating under the name and style AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) of "Dental Makeover" for medical treatment. necessitated by the dental injuries allegedly sustained by him during the incident on 27.08.2023. Subse dentist performed a tooth extraction procedure upon the complainant. Thereafter, the Police again sought for a medical opinion about the injuries suffered by the complainant from the Government Hospital, Gurugram, relevant whereof reads thus: 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) of "Dental Makeover" for medical treatment. necessitated by the dental injuries allegedly sustained by him during the incident on 27.08.2023. Subsequently, on 10.11.2023, the said private dentist performed a tooth extraction procedure upon the complainant. Thereafter, the Police again sought for a medical opinion about the injuries suffered by the complainant from the Government Hospital, Gurugram, elevant whereof reads thus: “To PMO, Government Hospital, Sector 10 District Gurugram. Subject – Regarding opinion about injuries. Sir, It is requested that in the case, MLC No.KS/2023/449 has been prepared for the complainant – Nishant Verma son resident of 236 Ground Floor Blossom Ist Sector 47 Gurugram. In which Dental Surgeon’s opinion has been obtained on Injury No.7. Regarding which you have given your opinion on 3/10/23. Now the complainant – Nishant Verma has presented the m his teeth (DENTAL MAKEOVERS B GARDEN BLOCK B SECTOR 50). Therefore, after observing the MLC and medical documents and the report of DENTAL MAKEOVERS hospital dated 30/9/23, you should again give your opinio as to what type of tooth is there. So that further investigation can be done in the case. Sd/- Crime Unit Sector 10 District Gurugram 20/11/23  Dr. Kamal/MO  Dr. Praveen Arya/MOs/Dental Surgeon  Dr. Deepak Mathur/Forensic Expert Dental 22/11/23 -On Perusal of the MLR dated 27/08/23, MLR NO Kamal Singh CMOs of district Civil Hospital Sec. 10, Gurugram the nature of injury probably seems to be simple Civil Hospital Sector Review of Dental opinion as given above specifies the dental injury to be simple which is also earlier given by Dr. Kamal Singh @ corroborated by Dr. Arjun Soni (Dental makeover) also. Patient did Ray TMJ (Jaw Joint) has been mentioned by Dr. Kamal Singh vide Opinion dated 3.10.23. No X-Ray films have been shown to the board also. However, NCCT face dt 28/8/27 clearly shows Body, Ramus, Alveolar process & Condylar process of mandibl 5 of "Dental Makeover" for medical treatment. As alleged, this treatment was necessitated by the dental injuries allegedly sustained by him during the quently, on 10.11.2023, the said private dentist performed a tooth extraction procedure upon the complainant. Thereafter, the Police again sought for a medical opinion about the injuries suffered by the complainant from the Government Hospital, Gurugram, PMO, Government Hospital, Sector 10 Regarding opinion about injuries. It is requested that in the case, MLC No.KS/2023/449 has been Nishant Verma son of S.K. Verma resident of 236 Ground Floor Blossom Ist Sector 47 Gurugram. In which Dental Surgeon’s opinion has been obtained on Injury No.7. Regarding which you have given your opinion on 3/10/23. Now the Nishant Verma has presented the medical report of one of his teeth (DENTAL MAKEOVERS B-4 GROUND FLOOR MAYFIELED GARDEN BLOCK B SECTOR 50). Therefore, after observing the MLC and medical documents and the report of DENTAL MAKEOVERS hospital dated 30/9/23, you should again give your opinion on 10-11-23 as to what type of tooth is there. So that further investigation can be Dr. Praveen Arya/MOs/Dental Surgeon Dr. Deepak Mathur/Forensic Expert Sd/- 20.11.23 On Perusal of the MLR dated 27/08/23, MLR NO-KS/2022/449 by Dr. Kamal Singh CMOs of district Civil Hospital Sec. 10, Gurugram the nature of injury probably seems to be simple Sd/- Dental Surgeon Civil Hospital Sector -10¸Gurugram 22/11/23 Review of Dental opinion as given above specifies the dental injury to be simple which is also earlier given by Dr. Kamal Singh @ corroborated by Dr. Arjun Soni (Dental makeover) also. Patient did not undergo X- Ray TMJ (Jaw Joint) has been mentioned by Dr. Kamal Singh vide Ray films have been shown to the board also. However, NCCT face dt 28/8/27 clearly shows Body, Ramus, Alveolar process & Condylar process of mandible to be Normal. The his treatment was necessitated by the dental injuries allegedly sustained by him during the quently, on 10.11.2023, the said private dentist performed a tooth extraction procedure upon the complainant. Thereafter, the Police again sought for a medical opinion about the injuries suffered by the complainant from the Government Hospital, Gurugram, It is requested that in the case, MLC No.KS/2023/449 has been of S.K. Verma resident of 236 Ground Floor Blossom Ist Sector 47 Gurugram. In which Dental Surgeon’s opinion has been obtained on Injury No.7. Regarding which you have given your opinion on 3/10/23. Now the edical report of one of 4 GROUND FLOOR MAYFIELED GARDEN BLOCK B SECTOR 50). Therefore, after observing the MLC and medical documents and the report of DENTAL MAKEOVERS 23 as to what type of tooth is there. So that further investigation can be KS/2022/449 by Dr. Kamal Singh CMOs of district Civil Hospital Sec. 10, Gurugram the Review of Dental opinion as given above specifies the dental injury to be simple which is also earlier given by Dr. Kamal Singh @ corroborated - Ray TMJ (Jaw Joint) has been mentioned by Dr. Kamal Singh vide Ray films have been shown to the board also. However, NCCT face dt 28/8/27 clearly shows Body, Ramus, e to be Normal. The AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) (vi) against the petitioners (herein) and exonerated accused petitioners, of the statements of 09 persons. A copy of the said report forth on record a reads thus: (vii) challan (charge concerned I and 34 of the IPC, 1860. Vide the 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) same may be further confirmed again by dental surgeon on board also, but in the light of aforesaid documents the injury to the teeth & Jaw be considered simple till a radiological or dental corroboration of the contrary is put on record. Sd/- ASMO (DCH Sec-10) 22/11/23 - The police official today dated 24/1/23 placed on file the print out/copy of the RVG x-ray of the patient concerned. On perusal of the same, the nature of injury probably to be simple Civil Hospital Sector The Police, on 29.09.2023, deleted Section 379 against the petitioners (herein) and exonerated accused petitioners, on the basis of investigation carried out as also after recording of the statements of 09 persons. A copy of the said report forth on record as Annexure P-2 in CRR “10. In the case, based on the interrogation of the aforementioned witnesses, the study of the file, and my investigation so far, it has been found that the complainant, Nishant Verma, was detained and assaulted inside the hospital and was given threats. Apart allegations made by the complainant regarding the snatching of his mobile phone, wallet, cash, dollars, matar mala (gold chain) and bracelet were found to be untrue. The offense under Section 379B IPC (Robbery) was not established in the c found against Dr. Rohit Lalit’s mother, Premlata. Accordingly, the investigating officer has been directed to remove Section 379B IPC from the case. Furthermore, an in-depth investigation should be conducted to identify the hospital staff member wearing a light blue seen in the CCTV footage. If any other person’s involvement is found legal action should also be taken against them as per the law. 11. As of now, the verification and investigation of the case been conducted at Police Station New Colony. The case file and witness statements have been handed over to Investigating Officer Deepak for further action, and I am now engaged in other government duties. The Police, after carrying out the challan (charge-sheet) against the accused on 08.02.2024 before Illaqa Magistrate under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of the IPC, 1860. Vide the impugned order 6 same may be further confirmed again by dental surgeon on board also, but in the light of aforesaid documents the injury to the teeth & Jaw be considered simple till a radiological or dental corroboration of the Sd/- Dr. Kamal Singh The police official today dated 24/1/23 placed on file the print ray of the patient concerned. On perusal of the same, the nature of injury probably to be simple only. Sd/- Dental Surgeon Civil Hospital Sector – 10, Gurugram” deleted Section 379-B of the IPC against the petitioners (herein) and exonerated accused other than investigation carried out as also after recording of the statements of 09 persons. A copy of the said report has been brought CRR-1437-2025, relevant whereof In the case, based on the interrogation of the aforementioned witnesses, the study of the file, and my investigation so far, it has been found that the complainant, Nishant Verma, was detained and assaulted inside the hospital and was given threats. Apart from this, the allegations made by the complainant regarding the snatching of his mobile phone, wallet, cash, dollars, matar mala (gold chain) and bracelet were found to be untrue. The offense under Section 379B IPC (Robbery) was not established in the case, and there is no evidence found against Dr. Rohit Lalit’s mother, Premlata. Accordingly, the investigating officer has been directed to remove Section 379B IPC from depth investigation should be conducted to hospital staff member wearing a light blue-gray T Shirt as seen in the CCTV footage. If any other person’s involvement is found legal action should also be taken against them as per the law. As of now, the verification and investigation of the case have been conducted at Police Station New Colony. The case file and witness statements have been handed over to Investigating Officer Deepak for further action, and I am now engaged in other government duties.” The Police, after carrying out the investigation, presented sheet) against the accused on 08.02.2024 before the under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 impugned order, the learned Additional same may be further confirmed again by dental surgeon on board also, but in the light of aforesaid documents the injury to the teeth & Jaw be considered simple till a radiological or dental corroboration of the The police official today dated 24/1/23 placed on file the print ray of the patient concerned. On perusal of IPC other than investigation carried out as also after recording brought , relevant whereof In the case, based on the interrogation of the aforementioned witnesses, the study of the file, and my investigation so far, it has been found that the complainant, Nishant Verma, was detained and assaulted from this, the allegations made by the complainant regarding the snatching of his mobile phone, wallet, cash, dollars, matar mala (gold chain) and bracelet were found to be untrue. The offense under Section 379B IPC ase, and there is no evidence found against Dr. Rohit Lalit’s mother, Premlata. Accordingly, the investigating officer has been directed to remove Section 379B IPC from depth investigation should be conducted to gray T Shirt as seen in the CCTV footage. If any other person’s involvement is found have been conducted at Police Station New Colony. The case file and witness statements have been handed over to Investigating Officer Deepak for investigation, presented the under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 , the learned Additional AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) Sessions Judge, G petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of the IPC. (viii) approached this Court vide CRR complainant has approached this Court vide CRR petitions have Court. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS 4. hand (CRR revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to circumstances beyond their control. Learned counsel has fur that after engaging the earlier counsel for filing and pursuing the instant case, the said counsel unfortunately met with a serious accident on 13.03.2025 and suffered According to applicants-petitioners were unable to retrieve the case file or proceed further in the matter for a considerable period. It has been contended that a condition of the said counsel, the applicants present counsel in May, 2025 and thereafter took requisite steps to retrieve the file and pursue appropriate legal remedies. It has been further contended that petition seeking quashing of the FIR which came to be withdrawn on 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Sessions Judge, Gurugram proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of the IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned order approached this Court vide CRR-2289-2025 complainant has approached this Court vide CRR It is in this factual backdrop, that petitions have come up for receiving consideration at the hands of this RIVAL SUBMISSIONS Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (CRR-2289-2025), has iterated that the delay in filing the present revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to circumstances beyond their control. Learned counsel has fur that after engaging the earlier counsel for filing and pursuing the instant case, the said counsel unfortunately met with a serious accident on 13.03.2025 and suffered grave head injuries and required According to the learned counsel, owing to said unfortunate accident, the petitioners were unable to make contact with the counsel and were unable to retrieve the case file or proceed further in the matter for a considerable period. It has been contended that a condition of the said counsel, the applicants present counsel in May, 2025 and thereafter took requisite steps to retrieve the file and pursue appropriate legal remedies. It has been further contended that the petitioners had initially approached this Court by filing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR which came to be withdrawn on 7 urugram proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of the IPC. impugned order, the accused have 2025 (petition in hand) whereas the complainant has approached this Court vide CRR-1437-2025. It is in this factual backdrop, that these two criminal revision come up for receiving consideration at the hands of this ring for the petitioners in the petition in , has iterated that the delay in filing the present revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due to circumstances beyond their control. Learned counsel has further iterated that after engaging the earlier counsel for filing and pursuing the instant case, the said counsel unfortunately met with a serious accident on grave head injuries and required brain surgery. learned counsel, owing to said unfortunate accident, the e contact with the counsel and were unable to retrieve the case file or proceed further in the matter for a considerable period. It has been contended that after learning about the condition of the said counsel, the applicants-petitioners contacted the present counsel in May, 2025 and thereafter took requisite steps to retrieve the file and pursue appropriate legal remedies. It has been further the petitioners had initially approached this Court by filing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR which came to be withdrawn on urugram proceeded to frame charges against the , the accused have the these two criminal revision come up for receiving consideration at the hands of this petition in , has iterated that the delay in filing the present revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate but has occurred due ther iterated that after engaging the earlier counsel for filing and pursuing the instant case, the said counsel unfortunately met with a serious accident on brain surgery. learned counsel, owing to said unfortunate accident, the e contact with the counsel and were unable to retrieve the case file or proceed further in the matter for a fter learning about the petitioners contacted the present counsel in May, 2025 and thereafter took requisite steps to retrieve the file and pursue appropriate legal remedies. It has been further the petitioners had initially approached this Court by filing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR which came to be withdrawn on AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 22.05.2025 with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. Learned counsel has canvassed that after fili petition, repeated objection(s) have been raised by the Registry and substantial time was consumed in removing the said objections and re filing the matter. Learned counsel has emphasized that the applicants petitioners have acted matter at every stage and there has been no negligence or intentional inaction on their part. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the instant application seeking condonati days in filing the present revision petition be condoned in the interest of justice. condonation of delay of 94 days in filing complainant by iterating that no reflected for seeking condonation of delay 4.1. vehemently contended that the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is ex facie not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been argued that, even the complainant were caused at the hands of the borne out from the medical record itself, not satisfy the essential ingredients constituting “grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320 IPC. the allegations levelled against the materially inconsistent and wholly contrary to the contemporaneous record. 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) 22.05.2025 with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. Learned counsel has canvassed that after fili petition, repeated objection(s) have been raised by the Registry and substantial time was consumed in removing the said objections and re filing the matter. Learned counsel has emphasized that the applicants petitioners have acted diligently and made sincere efforts to pursue the matter at every stage and there has been no negligence or intentional inaction on their part. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the instant application seeking condonati days in filing the present revision petition be condoned in the interest of Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the condonation of delay of 94 days in filing complainant by iterating that no plausible/ sufficient cause has been for seeking condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been argued that, even assuming arguendo the complainant were caused at the hands of the borne out from the medical record itself, are at best simple in nature and do not satisfy the essential ingredients constituting “grievous hurt” within the meaning of Section 320 IPC. Learned counsel has further submitted that the allegations levelled against the accused materially inconsistent and wholly contrary to the contemporaneous record. 8 22.05.2025 with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with law. Learned counsel has canvassed that after filing the present revision petition, repeated objection(s) have been raised by the Registry and substantial time was consumed in removing the said objections and re- filing the matter. Learned counsel has emphasized that the applicants- diligently and made sincere efforts to pursue the matter at every stage and there has been no negligence or intentional inaction on their part. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the instant application seeking condonation of 204 days in filing the present revision petition be condoned in the interest of learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the condonation of delay of 94 days in filing CRR-1437-2025 by the plausible/ sufficient cause has been accused, on merits of the lis, has vehemently contended that the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It assuming arguendo that the injuries alleged by the complainant were caused at the hands of the accused, the same, as are at best simple in nature and do not satisfy the essential ingredients constituting “grievous hurt” within the Learned counsel has further submitted that accused are inherently improbable, materially inconsistent and wholly contrary to the contemporaneous record. 22.05.2025 with liberty to avail alternative remedies in accordance with ng the present revision petition, repeated objection(s) have been raised by the Registry and - - diligently and made sincere efforts to pursue the matter at every stage and there has been no negligence or intentional inaction on their part. On the strength of these submissions, learned on of 204 days in filing the present revision petition be condoned in the interest of learned counsel for the petitioners has opposed the by the plausible/ sufficient cause has been has vehemently contended that the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It that the injuries alleged by , the same, as are at best simple in nature and do not satisfy the essential ingredients constituting “grievous hurt” within the Learned counsel has further submitted that are inherently improbable, materially inconsistent and wholly contrary to the contemporaneous record. AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) It has specifically been urged that petitioner No.1 is a medical practitioner suffering from 60% permanent physical disability, which substantially impairs his physical mobility an circumstances, the allegations attributing physical assault and active participation in the alleged occurrence to petitioner No.1 are implausible, inherently unreliable and devoid of credibility. implicated the petitioners with an oblique motive to harass, intimidate and exert undue pressure upon them for extraneous considerations by misusing his influence with the local police authorities. Learned counsel the mala fide fact that despite petitioner No.1 having lodged a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences by the complainant himself, the police authorities deliberatel demonstrating bias, arbitrariness and collusion with the complainant, who himself is a practising Advocate. that the entire edifice of the prosecution case stand evidence available on record. It has been submitted that all the medical opinions and treatment records consistently opine the injuries suffered by the complainant to be simple in nature, and there is no medical material whatsoever Section 325 IPC. It has further been contended that there is not even facie material on record to establish that the alleged extraction/loss of a tooth would, in the attending facts an hurt within the ambit of Section 320 IPC. 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) It has specifically been urged that petitioner No.1 is a medical practitioner suffering from 60% permanent physical disability, which substantially impairs his physical mobility and bodily movements. In such circumstances, the allegations attributing physical assault and active participation in the alleged occurrence to petitioner No.1 are implausible, inherently unreliable and devoid of credibility. It has further been contended that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners with an oblique motive to harass, intimidate and exert undue pressure upon them for extraneous considerations by misusing his influence with the local police authorities. Learned counsel mala fide intent underlying the prosecution is further evident from the fact that despite petitioner No.1 having lodged a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences by the complainant himself, the police authorities deliberately failed to register an FIR thereupon, thereby clearly demonstrating bias, arbitrariness and collusion with the complainant, who himself is a practising Advocate. Learned counsel has additionally argued that the entire edifice of the prosecution case stand evidence available on record. It has been submitted that all the medical opinions and treatment records consistently opine the injuries suffered by the complainant to be simple in nature, and there is no medical material whatsoever suggestive of any grievous injury so as to attract the rigours of Section 325 IPC. It has further been contended that there is not even material on record to establish that the alleged extraction/loss of a tooth would, in the attending facts and circumstances, constitute grievous hurt within the ambit of Section 320 IPC. 9 It has specifically been urged that petitioner No.1 is a medical practitioner suffering from 60% permanent physical disability, which substantially d bodily movements. In such circumstances, the allegations attributing physical assault and active participation in the alleged occurrence to petitioner No.1 are ex facie implausible, inherently unreliable and devoid of credibility. ontended that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners with an oblique motive to harass, intimidate and exert undue pressure upon them for extraneous considerations by misusing his influence with the local police authorities. Learned counsel submits that intent underlying the prosecution is further evident from the fact that despite petitioner No.1 having lodged a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences by the complainant himself, the police y failed to register an FIR thereupon, thereby clearly demonstrating bias, arbitrariness and collusion with the complainant, who Learned counsel has additionally argued that the entire edifice of the prosecution case stands belied by the medical evidence available on record. It has been submitted that all the medical opinions and treatment records consistently opine the injuries suffered by the complainant to be simple in nature, and there is no medical material suggestive of any grievous injury so as to attract the rigours of Section 325 IPC. It has further been contended that there is not even prima material on record to establish that the alleged extraction/loss of a d circumstances, constitute grievous hurt within the ambit of Section 320 IPC. Learned counsel has further It has specifically been urged that petitioner No.1 is a medical practitioner suffering from 60% permanent physical disability, which substantially d bodily movements. In such circumstances, the allegations attributing physical assault and active ex facie ontended that the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners with an oblique motive to harass, intimidate and exert undue pressure upon them for extraneous considerations by misusing submits that intent underlying the prosecution is further evident from the fact that despite petitioner No.1 having lodged a complaint disclosing commission of cognizable offences by the complainant himself, the police y failed to register an FIR thereupon, thereby clearly demonstrating bias, arbitrariness and collusion with the complainant, who Learned counsel has additionally argued s belied by the medical evidence available on record. It has been submitted that all the medical opinions and treatment records consistently opine the injuries suffered by the complainant to be simple in nature, and there is no medical material suggestive of any grievous injury so as to attract the rigours of prima material on record to establish that the alleged extraction/loss of a d circumstances, constitute grievous Learned counsel has further AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) pointed out that the falsity and vindictive nature of the allegations levelled by the complainant are also manifest from the dismissal of Complaint No.COMI/32/2024 instituted by the complainant against the present petitioners as well as certain doctors of Civil Hospital, Sector Gurugram, wherein allegations pertaining to conspiracy and fabrication of medical opinion had been raised against the conc has contended that the against the petitioners suffers from patent illegality, non mind and mis therefore, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the present revision petition and quashing the charges framed against the petitioners vide order dated 20.11.2024. 5. in persons, of 94 days in filing the revision petition (CRR that after passing of the collecting the relevant records and documents necessary for assailing the impugned order. He has further submitted that the drafting and preparation of the petition took considerable time owing to the complexity of the matter and the volumi immediately after completion of the requisite formalities and procurement of documents, he acted diligently and approached this Court without further delay. According to him, the delay is the same is not condoned, he would suffer grave prejudice as material 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) pointed out that the falsity and vindictive nature of the allegations levelled by the complainant are also manifest from the dismissal of Complaint o.COMI/32/2024 instituted by the complainant against the present petitioners as well as certain doctors of Civil Hospital, Sector Gurugram, wherein allegations pertaining to conspiracy and fabrication of medical opinion had been raised against the conc On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has contended that the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 framing charges against the petitioners suffers from patent illegality, non mind and mis-appreciation of the material available on record and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the present revision petition and quashing the charges framed against the petitioners vide order dated 20.11.2024. Respondent No.2/petitioner in CRR while raising submissions with regard to condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the revision petition (CRR that after passing of the impugned order collecting the relevant records and documents necessary for assailing the impugned order. He has further submitted that the drafting and preparation of the petition took considerable time owing to the complexity of the matter and the voluminous nature of the record. It has been further submitted that immediately after completion of the requisite formalities and procurement of documents, he acted diligently and approached this Court without further delay. According to him, the delay is the same is not condoned, he would suffer grave prejudice as material 10 pointed out that the falsity and vindictive nature of the allegations levelled by the complainant are also manifest from the dismissal of Complaint o.COMI/32/2024 instituted by the complainant against the present petitioners as well as certain doctors of Civil Hospital, Sector-16, Gurugram, wherein allegations pertaining to conspiracy and fabrication of medical opinion had been raised against the concerned medical officers. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel dated 20.11.2024 framing charges against the petitioners suffers from patent illegality, non-application of tion of the material available on record and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the present revision petition and quashing the charges framed against the petitioners vide order dated 20.11.2024. Respondent No.2/petitioner in CRR-1437-2025, who appears while raising submissions with regard to condonation of delay of 94 days in filing the revision petition (CRR-1437-2025), has submitted impugned order dated 20.11.2024, he was collecting the relevant records and documents necessary for assailing the impugned order. He has further submitted that the drafting and preparation of the petition took considerable time owing to the complexity of the matter nous nature of the record. It has been further submitted that immediately after completion of the requisite formalities and procurement of documents, he acted diligently and approached this Court without further delay. According to him, the delay is bona fide, unintentional and if the same is not condoned, he would suffer grave prejudice as material pointed out that the falsity and vindictive nature of the allegations levelled by the complainant are also manifest from the dismissal of Complaint o.COMI/32/2024 instituted by the complainant against the present 16, Gurugram, wherein allegations pertaining to conspiracy and fabrication of On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel dated 20.11.2024 framing charges application of tion of the material available on record and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the present revision petition and quashing the charges framed 2025, who appears while raising submissions with regard to condonation of delay 2025), has submitted 1.2024, he was collecting the relevant records and documents necessary for assailing the impugned order. He has further submitted that the drafting and preparation of the petition took considerable time owing to the complexity of the matter nous nature of the record. It has been further submitted that immediately after completion of the requisite formalities and procurement of documents, he acted diligently and approached this Court without unintentional and if the same is not condoned, he would suffer grave prejudice as material AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) aspects of the matter would remain unaddressed. On the strength of these submissions, he has prayed that the delay of 94 days in filing the connected revision petition (CRR filing CRR complainant (who appears in person) application (seeking condonation of delay in filing as also there is no tangible material to support the said stand. entreated that declined. 5.1. opposing the espoused in CRR 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, framing charges under Sections 201, 325 and 331 IPC against the petitioners is perfectly legal, justified and founded upon a due and proper appreciation of the material collected has been contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the medical evidence as well as the other incriminating material collected by the investiga agency, prima facie petitioners and fully justify the framing of charges against them at the present stage. grounds raised in CRR that both the investigating agency as well as the learned Court below have 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) aspects of the matter would remain unaddressed. On the strength of these submissions, he has prayed that the delay of 94 days in filing the connected petition (CRR-1437-2025) be condoned in the interest of justice. Further, opposing the plea for condonation of 2 filing CRR-2289-2025 by the accused, it has been iterated by the complainant (who appears in person) that the story put forth in application (seeking condonation of delay in filing there is no tangible material to support the said stand. entreated that this application (seeking condonation of delay) The Complainant who appears in person, the petition in hand (CRR-2289 espoused in CRR-1437-2025, has submitted that the 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, framing charges under Sections 201, 325 and 331 IPC against the petitioners is perfectly legal, justified and founded upon a due and proper appreciation of the material collected during the course of investigation. It has been contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the medical evidence as well as the other incriminating material collected by the investiga prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners and fully justify the framing of charges against them at the present stage. While advancing submissions in consonance with the grounds raised in CRR-2289-2025, the complainant that both the investigating agency as well as the learned Court below have 11 aspects of the matter would remain unaddressed. On the strength of these submissions, he has prayed that the delay of 94 days in filing the connected 2025) be condoned in the interest of justice. plea for condonation of 204 days in by the accused, it has been iterated by the that the story put forth in the application (seeking condonation of delay in filing) is a concocted version there is no tangible material to support the said stand. It is, thus, application (seeking condonation of delay) ought to be who appears in person, while vehemently 2289-2025) & supporting the cause has submitted that the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, framing charges under Sections 201, 325 and 331 IPC against the petitioners is perfectly legal, justified and founded upon a due and proper during the course of investigation. It has been contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the medical evidence as well as the other incriminating material collected by the investigating disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners and fully justify the framing of charges against them at the While advancing submissions in consonance with the omplainant has further contended that both the investigating agency as well as the learned Court below have aspects of the matter would remain unaddressed. On the strength of these submissions, he has prayed that the delay of 94 days in filing the connected in by the accused, it has been iterated by the the ) is a concocted version It is, thus, ought to be vehemently & supporting the cause dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, framing charges under Sections 201, 325 and 331 IPC against the petitioners is perfectly legal, justified and founded upon a due and proper during the course of investigation. It has been contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the medical evidence as ting disclose the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners and fully justify the framing of charges against them at the While advancing submissions in consonance with the has further contended that both the investigating agency as well as the learned Court below have AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective and have illegally omitted several accused persons from the array of accused while simultaneously diluting the gravity of the offences by deleting serious penal provisions from the FIR and the final report. further been argued that the investigating agency has committed a manifest illegality and acted in an arbitrary several specifically named accused persons despite the fact that the FIR itself, coupled with the status report dated 29.09.2023, clearly establishes their presence and participation at the place of occurrence. has submitted that Sections 147 and 149 IPC had initially been invoked during investigation and that all the persons arrayed as res 6 in CRR- hospital premises where the alleged respondent No.2, once the presence and assembly of the accused persons at the scene of occurrence stood admitted, the investigating agency could not have arbitrarily excluded the applicability of the offences relating to unlawful assembly and common object. specific allegations pertaining to snatching and use of force, the investigating agency, in a wholly the offence und 29.09.2023 submitted before the learned Court below. alleged that such deletion of serious penal provisions was not based upon any fair or objective assessment of the evidence, deliberate attempt to shield the accused p 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective and have illegally omitted several accused persons from the array of ccused while simultaneously diluting the gravity of the offences by deleting serious penal provisions from the FIR and the final report. further been argued that the investigating agency has committed a manifest illegality and acted in an arbitrary manner by discharging and omitting several specifically named accused persons despite the fact that the FIR itself, coupled with the status report dated 29.09.2023, clearly establishes their presence and participation at the place of occurrence. has submitted that Sections 147 and 149 IPC had initially been invoked during investigation and that all the persons arrayed as res -1437-2025 have themselves admitted their presence at the hospital premises where the alleged incident took place. According to respondent No.2, once the presence and assembly of the accused persons at the scene of occurrence stood admitted, the investigating agency could not have arbitrarily excluded the applicability of the offences relating to nlawful assembly and common object. It has further been contended that despite the existence of specific allegations pertaining to snatching and use of force, the investigating agency, in a wholly mala fide the offence under Section 379-B IPC from the case vide status report dated 29.09.2023 submitted before the learned Court below. alleged that such deletion of serious penal provisions was not based upon any fair or objective assessment of the evidence, deliberate attempt to shield the accused persons from the rigours of law. 12 failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective and have illegally omitted several accused persons from the array of ccused while simultaneously diluting the gravity of the offences by deleting serious penal provisions from the FIR and the final report. It has further been argued that the investigating agency has committed a manifest manner by discharging and omitting several specifically named accused persons despite the fact that the FIR itself, coupled with the status report dated 29.09.2023, clearly establishes their presence and participation at the place of occurrence. The complainant has submitted that Sections 147 and 149 IPC had initially been invoked during investigation and that all the persons arrayed as respondent Nos.2 to 2025 have themselves admitted their presence at the incident took place. According to respondent No.2, once the presence and assembly of the accused persons at the scene of occurrence stood admitted, the investigating agency could not have arbitrarily excluded the applicability of the offences relating to It has further been contended that despite the existence of specific allegations pertaining to snatching and use of force, the and unjustified manner, deleted B IPC from the case vide status report dated 29.09.2023 submitted before the learned Court below. The complainant has alleged that such deletion of serious penal provisions was not based upon any fair or objective assessment of the evidence, but was indicative of a ersons from the rigours of law. failed to appreciate the material available on record in its true perspective and have illegally omitted several accused persons from the array of ccused while simultaneously diluting the gravity of the offences by It has further been argued that the investigating agency has committed a manifest manner by discharging and omitting several specifically named accused persons despite the fact that the FIR itself, coupled with the status report dated 29.09.2023, clearly establishes inant has submitted that Sections 147 and 149 IPC had initially been invoked pondent Nos.2 to 2025 have themselves admitted their presence at the incident took place. According to respondent No.2, once the presence and assembly of the accused persons at the scene of occurrence stood admitted, the investigating agency could not have arbitrarily excluded the applicability of the offences relating to It has further been contended that despite the existence of specific allegations pertaining to snatching and use of force, the and unjustified manner, deleted B IPC from the case vide status report dated has alleged that such deletion of serious penal provisions was not based upon but was indicative of a ersons from the rigours of law. AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) The complainant respondent categorical allegati exhortation and provocation to commit the assault, including exhortations to kill the complainant. It has been argued that notwithstanding the grave and specific nature of the allegations levelled again agency, without assigning any cogent justification, chose to exonerate her from the case, thereby rendering the investigation unfair. contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly sift, analyse and judicially evaluate the material available on record and mechanically accepted the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency without independently considerin disclosing the commission of additional offences and the involvement of other accused persons. has prayed that the Court below be directed to frame charges under Sections 307, 323, 325, 331, 341, 379 against the accused persons. A further prayer has also been made for summoning respondent Nos.6 to 15 as ad proceeding against them in accordance with law. 6. the present case was conducted by the investigating agency in a fair, 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) The complainant has also specifically assailed the exclusion of private respondent – Prem Lata from the array of accused persons despite categorical allegations in the FIR attributing to her active instigation, exhortation and provocation to commit the assault, including exhortations to kill the complainant. It has been argued that notwithstanding the grave and specific nature of the allegations levelled again agency, without assigning any cogent justification, chose to exonerate her from the case, thereby rendering the investigation Assailing the impugned order contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly sift, analyse and judicially evaluate the material available on record and mechanically accepted the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency without independently considering despite the commission of additional offences and the involvement of other accused persons. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, has prayed that the impugned order be suitably modified and th Court below be directed to frame charges under Sections 307, 323, 325, 331, 341, 379-B, 201 and 506 IPC read with Sections 147 and 149 IPC against the accused persons. A further prayer has also been made for summoning respondent Nos.6 to 15 as additional accused persons and for proceeding against them in accordance with law. Learned State counsel has submitted that the investigation in the present case was conducted by the investigating agency in a fair, 13 has also specifically assailed the exclusion of private Prem Lata from the array of accused persons despite ons in the FIR attributing to her active instigation, exhortation and provocation to commit the assault, including exhortations to kill the complainant. It has been argued that notwithstanding the grave and specific nature of the allegations levelled against her, the investigating agency, without assigning any cogent justification, chose to exonerate her from the case, thereby rendering the investigation tainted, selective and impugned order further, the complainant has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly sift, analyse and judicially evaluate the material available on record and mechanically accepted the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency despite the material prima facie the commission of additional offences and the involvement of On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, the Complainant be suitably modified and the learned Court below be directed to frame charges under Sections 307, 323, 325, B, 201 and 506 IPC read with Sections 147 and 149 IPC against the accused persons. A further prayer has also been made for ditional accused persons and for proceeding against them in accordance with law. Learned State counsel has submitted that the investigation in the present case was conducted by the investigating agency in a fair, has also specifically assailed the exclusion of private Prem Lata from the array of accused persons despite ons in the FIR attributing to her active instigation, exhortation and provocation to commit the assault, including exhortations to kill the complainant. It has been argued that notwithstanding the grave st her, the investigating agency, without assigning any cogent justification, chose to exonerate her tainted, selective and has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to properly sift, analyse and judicially evaluate the material available on record and mechanically accepted the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency prima facie the commission of additional offences and the involvement of the Complainant e learned Court below be directed to frame charges under Sections 307, 323, 325, B, 201 and 506 IPC read with Sections 147 and 149 IPC against the accused persons. A further prayer has also been made for ditional accused persons and for Learned State counsel has submitted that the investigation in the present case was conducted by the investigating agency in a fair, AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) impartial and lawful manner, and upon c Report/Challan dated 08.02.2024 came to be presented before the learned jurisdictional magistrate strictly in consonance with the material collected during investigation. It has been further argued that the learned trial Court while passing the the entire material available on record & has framed charges only to the extent a prima facie has been further submitted that the l the four corners of settled legal principles, cannot be said to have committed any error, thereby any interference with the warranted. 7. complainant and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 8. pertinent to note that there is petition bearing No. 1437-2025. However, having rega a holistic consideration of the filing both the revision petitions considered on merits thereof. 9. herein to a judgment passed by this Court titled as vs. State of Haryana relying upon the the cases of 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) impartial and lawful manner, and upon c Report/Challan dated 08.02.2024 came to be presented before the learned jurisdictional magistrate strictly in consonance with the material collected during investigation. It has been further argued that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order on charge, has meticulously examined the entire material available on record & has framed charges only to the prima facie case was discernible against the accused persons. It has been further submitted that the learned trial Court having acted within the four corners of settled legal principles, cannot be said to have committed any error, thereby any interference with the I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the omplainant and have gone through the record with their able assistance. Before adverting to the merits of the pertinent to note that there is a delay of 204 days in preferring th petition bearing No.CRR-2289-2025 and a delay of 94 days in filing CRR 2025. However, having regard to the submissions advanced a holistic consideration of the attending circumstances, the said delay in filing both the revision petitions ought to be considered on merits thereof. Before proceeding on merits, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court titled as vs. State of Haryana; 2024 (3) Law Herald 1971 relying upon the dicta of the judgments of of State of Karnataka versus L. Munishwamy: 1977 (3) SCR 133, 14 impartial and lawful manner, and upon culmination thereof, the Final Report/Challan dated 08.02.2024 came to be presented before the learned jurisdictional magistrate strictly in consonance with the material collected during investigation. It has been further argued that the learned trial Court, on charge, has meticulously examined the entire material available on record & has framed charges only to the case was discernible against the accused persons. It earned trial Court having acted within the four corners of settled legal principles, cannot be said to have committed any error, thereby any interference with the impugned order not I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the omplainant and have gone through the record with their able assistance. to the merits of the revision petitions, it is delay of 204 days in preferring the revision a delay of 94 days in filing CRR- rd to the submissions advanced and upon circumstances, the said delay in ought to be condoned & the lis ought to be , it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court titled as Sanjay Kumar Sharma Herald 1971; wherein this Court after judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka versus L. Munishwamy: 1977 (3) SCR 133, ulmination thereof, the Final Report/Challan dated 08.02.2024 came to be presented before the learned jurisdictional magistrate strictly in consonance with the material collected , on charge, has meticulously examined the entire material available on record & has framed charges only to the case was discernible against the accused persons. It earned trial Court having acted within the four corners of settled legal principles, cannot be said to have not I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the , it is e revision - and upon circumstances, the said delay in e , it would be apposite to refer Sanjay Kumar Sharma wherein this Court after in State of Karnataka versus L. Munishwamy: 1977 (3) SCR 133, AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) State of Bihar versus Ramesh Singh: AIR 1977 SC 2018, and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal versus Anil Kumar Bhunjia and others, 1979 (4) SCC 274, Punjab versus Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962, of Maharashtra versus Som Nath Thapa e M.P. versus S.B. Johri, AIR 2000 SC 665, Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajan Kumar versus CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 and Ghulam Hassan Beigh versus Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, 202 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) State of Bihar versus Ramesh Singh: AIR 1977 SC 2018, and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal versus Anil Kumar Bhunjia and others, 1979 (4) SCC 274, Punjab versus Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962, of Maharashtra versus Som Nath Thapa e M.P. versus S.B. Johri, AIR 2000 SC 665, Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajan Kumar versus CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 and Ghulam Hassan Beigh versus Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and others, 2022 (12) SCC 657 = 2022 INSC 750 “Legal issues (A) WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES AGAINST AN ACCUSED. xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. The statutory provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973, dealing with framing of charges are contained in three sets of sections, namely; Sections 227 and 228 deal with Sessions trial, Sections 239 and 240 deal with trial of warrants case whereas Sections 245 deals with Despite there being some difference in the language employed by legislature in these three sets of statutory provisions, the common test required for framing of charges is that of prima facie case as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Som Nath Thapa (supra). The mantle that a Court is to adorn while considering the aspect of framing of charges is different from that of a trial Judge, who is hearing final arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced a a full-fledged trial & the seminal question before such trial Judge is as to whether or not the prosecution has made out a case for conviction of the accused. The ratio-decidendi of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Singh (supra) and Anil Kumar Bhunjia (supra) clearly stipulates that the standard of test and proof which is to be applied is not the same as the one which ought to the applied at time of final adjudication upon culmination of trial i.e. whether to hold the accused guilty or not. In other words, if the Court were to find that the accused might have committed the offence, it ought to frame charges whereas for conviction the Court has to find that the accused has actually committed the offence. Ergo, the Court is required to placed before it, a strong suspicion is made out against the accused. Needless to say, such strong suspicion must be founded on some tangible material. Such material must have the capability of being transformed into reliable evidence at stage of trial. Such strong suspicion ought not be pure subjective satisfaction based on moral notions of a Judge that the case is one where it is possible that accused might have committed 15 State of Bihar versus Ramesh Singh: AIR 1977 SC 2018, Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal versus Anil Kumar Bhunjia and others, 1979 (4) SCC 274, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjab versus Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962, State of Maharashtra versus Som Nath Thapa etc., (1996) 4 SCC 659, State of M.P. versus S.B. Johri, AIR 2000 SC 665, Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajan Kumar versus CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 and Ghulam Hassan Beigh versus Mohammad Maqbool 2 (12) SCC 657 = 2022 INSC 750; has held thus: WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES xxx xxx xxx xxx The statutory provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973, dealing with framing of charges are contained in three sets of sections, namely; Sections 227 and 228 deal with Sessions trial, Sections 239 and 240 deal with trial of warrants case whereas Sections 245 deals with trials of summons case. Despite there being some difference in the language employed by legislature in these three sets of statutory provisions, the common test required for framing of charges is that of prima facie case as has been ble Supreme Court in case of Som Nath Thapa (supra). The mantle that a Court is to adorn while considering the aspect of framing of charges is different from that of a trial Judge, who is hearing final arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after fledged trial & the seminal question before such trial Judge is as to whether or not the prosecution has made out a case for conviction of decidendi of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court d Anil Kumar Bhunjia (supra) clearly stipulates that the standard of test and proof which is to be applied is not the same as the one which ought to the applied at time of final adjudication upon culmination of trial i.e. whether to hold the accused or not. In other words, if the Court were to find that the accused might have committed the offence, it ought to frame charges whereas for conviction the Court has to find that the accused has actually committed the offence. Ergo, the Court is required to see whether from the material placed before it, a strong suspicion is made out against the accused. Needless to say, such strong suspicion must be founded on some tangible material. Such material must have the capability of being transformed evidence at stage of trial. Such strong suspicion ought not be pure subjective satisfaction based on moral notions of a Judge that the case is one where it is possible that accused might have committed Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal versus Anil Kumar Niranjan Singh Karam Singh State , State of M.P. versus S.B. Johri, AIR 2000 SC 665, Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, Sajan Kumar versus CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 and Ghulam Hassan Beigh versus Mohammad Maqbool WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES The statutory provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973, dealing with framing of charges are contained in three sets of sections, namely; Sections 227 and 228 deal with Sessions trial, Sections 239 and 240 deal with trial of trials of summons case. Despite there being some difference in the language employed by legislature in these three sets of statutory provisions, the common test required for framing of charges is that of prima facie case as has been ble Supreme Court in case of Som Nath Thapa (supra). The mantle that a Court is to adorn while considering the aspect of framing of charges is different from that of a trial Judge, who is fter fledged trial & the seminal question before such trial Judge is as to whether or not the prosecution has made out a case for conviction of decidendi of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court d Anil Kumar Bhunjia (supra) clearly stipulates that the standard of test and proof which is to be applied is not the same as the one which ought to the applied at time of final adjudication upon culmination of trial i.e. whether to hold the accused or not. In other words, if the Court were to find that the accused might have committed the offence, it ought to frame charges whereas for conviction the Court has to find that the accused has actually committed see whether from the material placed before it, a strong suspicion is made out against the accused. Needless to say, such strong suspicion must be founded on some tangible material. Such material must have the capability of being transformed evidence at stage of trial. Such strong suspicion ought not be pure subjective satisfaction based on moral notions of a Judge that the case is one where it is possible that accused might have committed AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) the offence. To put in other words, it is not suspici suspicion that will call for a person to be arraigned as an accused. 9.1 However, it does not mean that the Court is not required to consider the material brought before it at time of its consideration upon the aspect of framing of charges. The Court is duty bound to sift through material brought before it to find out whether or not prima facie case is made out against the accused as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra). However; truthfulness, sufficiency, acceptability or reliability of such material ought not to be delved into as held in the dicta of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SB Johri (supra). To put it differently, the probative value of material brought before the minutely examined. The Court, ought not to accept what material says as gospel truth, if such material is opposed to common sense or broad probabilities of the case as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi (supra). Hence the Court is required to consider broad probabilities, total affect of evidence/documents produced before it, the basic infirmities in the case which go to the root of the prosecution version, there being a legal bar to prosecution, the element of criminality clearly missing and so on. At this juncture, a word of caution is called for viz, while considering the material at the time of framing of charges, the Court is not to sift through such material in a meticulous manner le trial. Such an endeavour is impermissible, in law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh (supra). 9.2 There is no gainsaying that framing of charges is a crucial facet of criminal proceedings. An order framing charge (s) affects a person's liberty in a substantial manner and, therefore, a Court is required to carefully look into this aspect as held in case of Munishwamy's case (supra). Further; the Court cannot, while considering the aspect o framing of charges, be expected to act merely as a post office or mouth piece of prosecution as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar's case (supra). A Court, while adjudicating upon the aspect of framing of charges, is essentially required concerned, namely; the prosecution (society at large), victim/complainant and the accused; the interest of justice and fair trial being above all. The sapient principle, which has met with favour from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reads thus: " A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." A trial Judge, hence, ought not to treat the pivotal matter pertaining to framing of charges in a perfunctory nay ritualistic manner. Often enough, a trial ensues, complete with a rigmarole spiraling about, due to lack of assiduity accorded to framing of c of a trial Judge is indubitably demanding, exacting as also relentless and there is no easy way out of it. Yet, the judicial wisdom must be surely and unhesitatingly applied by the trial Court in framing charges, in every case, with its unique factual matrix. It is seen, more often than not, that there is an endeavour by the complainant the rigmarole of a lame prosecution/trial for facing a fullfledged trial which has its own perils. Even when prosecution not meet the requisite standards, especially when the accused would be 16 the offence. To put in other words, it is not suspicion but grave/strong suspicion that will call for a person to be arraigned as an accused. However, it does not mean that the Court is not required to consider the material brought before it at time of its consideration upon harges. The Court is duty bound to sift through material brought before it to find out whether or not prima facie case is made out against the accused as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra). However; fulness, sufficiency, acceptability or reliability of such material ought not to be delved into as held in the dicta of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SB Johri (supra). To put it differently, the probative value of material brought before the Court is not to be minutely examined. The Court, ought not to accept what material says as gospel truth, if such material is opposed to common sense or broad probabilities of the case as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in am Singh Punjabi (supra). Hence the Court is required to consider broad probabilities, total affect of evidence/documents produced before it, the basic infirmities in the case which go to the root of the prosecution version, there being a legal bar ecution, the element of criminality clearly missing and so on. At this juncture, a word of caution is called for viz, while considering the material at the time of framing of charges, the Court is not to sift through such material in a meticulous manner lest it amounts to a mini trial. Such an endeavour is impermissible, in law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh (supra). There is no gainsaying that framing of charges is a crucial facet s. An order framing charge (s) affects a person's liberty in a substantial manner and, therefore, a Court is required to carefully look into this aspect as held in case of Munishwamy's case (supra). Further; the Court cannot, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, be expected to act merely as a post office or mouth piece of prosecution as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar's case (supra). A Court, while adjudicating upon the aspect of framing of charges, is essentially required to consider the interests of all concerned, namely; the prosecution (society at large), victim/complainant and the accused; the interest of justice and fair trial being above all. The sapient principle, which has met with favour from ourt, reads thus: " A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties." A trial Judge, hence, ought not to treat the pivotal matter pertaining to framing of charges in a perfunctory nay ritualistic manner. Often enough, a trial ensues, complete with a rigmarole spiraling about, due to lack of assiduity accorded to framing of charges. Duty and work of a trial Judge is indubitably demanding, exacting as also relentless and there is no easy way out of it. Yet, the judicial wisdom must be surely and unhesitatingly applied by the trial Court in framing charges, in every ts unique factual matrix. It is seen, more often than not, that there is an endeavour by the complainant-side to drag the accused into the rigmarole of a lame prosecution/trial for facing a fullfledged trial which has its own perils. Even when prosecution case is lame and does not meet the requisite standards, especially when the accused would be on but grave/strong However, it does not mean that the Court is not required to consider the material brought before it at time of its consideration upon harges. The Court is duty bound to sift through material brought before it to find out whether or not prima facie case is made out against the accused as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra). However; fulness, sufficiency, acceptability or reliability of such material ought not to be delved into as held in the dicta of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SB Johri (supra). To put it differently, the Court is not to be minutely examined. The Court, ought not to accept what material says as gospel truth, if such material is opposed to common sense or broad probabilities of the case as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in am Singh Punjabi (supra). Hence the Court is required to consider broad probabilities, total affect of evidence/documents produced before it, the basic infirmities in the case which go to the root of the prosecution version, there being a legal bar ecution, the element of criminality clearly missing and so on. At this juncture, a word of caution is called for viz, while considering the material at the time of framing of charges, the Court is not to sift st it amounts to a mini trial. Such an endeavour is impermissible, in law, as laid down by the There is no gainsaying that framing of charges is a crucial facet s. An order framing charge (s) affects a person's liberty in a substantial manner and, therefore, a Court is required to carefully look into this aspect as held in case of Munishwamy's case f framing of charges, be expected to act merely as a post office or mouth piece of prosecution as enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar's case (supra). A Court, while adjudicating upon the aspect of to consider the interests of all concerned, namely; the prosecution (society at large), victim/complainant and the accused; the interest of justice and fair trial being above all. The sapient principle, which has met with favour from " A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a A trial Judge, hence, ought not to treat the pivotal matter pertaining to framing of charges in a perfunctory nay ritualistic manner. Often enough, a trial ensues, complete with a rigmarole spiraling about, harges. Duty and work of a trial Judge is indubitably demanding, exacting as also relentless and there is no easy way out of it. Yet, the judicial wisdom must be surely and unhesitatingly applied by the trial Court in framing charges, in every ts unique factual matrix. It is seen, more often than not, that side to drag the accused into the rigmarole of a lame prosecution/trial for facing a fullfledged trial case is lame and does not meet the requisite standards, especially when the accused would be AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) manifestly let go of and particularly when accused ought to be discharged in facts of a given case; facing a protracted trial would tantamount to punishment in itself for the accused; also in terms of time and expenses besides the anxiety, unease as also a sense of persecution; a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of such an accused. Ergo, the trial Court must create a balance, discard its dilemmas in accordance with law at all stages of trial including the stage of consideration of arraignment. That the justice is served is primary, including the process of justice, which ought to be just and fair to all concerned; even to the accused. 9.3 No exhaustive set of guideline(s) to govern, the exercise of aspect of framing of charges by a Court, can possibly be laid down however, alluring this aspect may be. It is neither fathomable nor desirable to lay down any straight-jacket formula in this regard. To do so would crystallize into a rigid definition, a judicial discretion, which even the Legislature has, for best of all reasons, left undetermined. Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one addi sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular case which the Court is in seisin of, since every case has its own peculi factual conspectus. xx xx xx 9.4. As a result of above discussion, the following postulates emerge: I. The power as also the duty cast upon the Court, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, is a significant facet of criminal proceedings & hence the same ought to be undertaken in an assiduous manner and not in a ritualistic or lackadaisical manner. II. The Court, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, ought not to act merely as a post office or a mouth pi prosecution but ought to consider this pivotal aspect keeping in view the interest of all concerned namely the prosecution (society at large), victim/complainant as also the accused; the interest of justice and fair trial being above all. III. A Court while considering the question of framing of charges, undoubtedly, has power to sift and weigh the material produced before it for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. It must be caut the Court ought not to make a roving enquiry into the truthfulness, reliability, relevance or sufficiency etc. of such material brought before it since these aspects are required to be accounted for at the time of holding the accused guilty or not. IV. While sifting through the material placed before it the Court ought to consider the broad probabilities of the case, total affect of evidence/document produced before it, basic infirmities in the case, there being legal bar to the prosecution, whether such material is opposed to common sense, whether the allegations and material brought in support thereof are patently absurd or inherently improbable to meet the test of a prudent person, the continuation of the trial is abuse of the Court/law leading to injustice and such factors of akin nature. 17 manifestly let go of and particularly when accused ought to be discharged in facts of a given case; facing a protracted trial would elf for the accused; also in terms of time and expenses besides the anxiety, unease as also a sense of persecution; a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of such an accused. Ergo, the trial Court must create a balance, discard its dilemmas in e with law at all stages of trial including the stage of consideration of arraignment. That the justice is served is primary, including the process of justice, which ought to be just and fair to all f guideline(s) to govern, the exercise of aspect of framing of charges by a Court, can possibly be laid down however, alluring this aspect may be. It is neither fathomable nor desirable to lay jacket formula in this regard. To do so would be to crystallize into a rigid definition, a judicial discretion, which even the Legislature has, for best of all reasons, left undetermined. Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular case which the Court is in seisin of, since every case has its own peculiar xx xx As a result of above discussion, the following postulates emerge: The power as also the duty cast upon the Court, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, is a significant facet of criminal proceedings & hence the same ought to be undertaken in an assiduous manner and not in a ritualistic or lackadaisical manner. The Court, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, ought not to act merely as a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution but ought to consider this pivotal aspect keeping in view the interest of all concerned namely the prosecution (society at large), victim/complainant as also the accused; the interest of justice and fair A Court while considering the question of framing of charges, undoubtedly, has power to sift and weigh the material produced before it for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. It must be cautioned, at this stage, that the Court ought not to make a roving enquiry into the truthfulness, reliability, relevance or sufficiency etc. of such material brought before it since these aspects are required to be accounted for at the time of While sifting through the material placed before it the Court ought to consider the broad probabilities of the case, total affect of evidence/document produced before it, basic infirmities in the case, there prosecution, whether such material is opposed to common sense, whether the allegations and material brought in support thereof are patently absurd or inherently improbable to meet the test of a prudent person, the continuation of the trial is abuse of the process of Court/law leading to injustice and such factors of akin nature. manifestly let go of and particularly when accused ought to be discharged in facts of a given case; facing a protracted trial would elf for the accused; also in terms of time and expenses besides the anxiety, unease as also a sense of persecution; a sword of Damocles hanging over the head of such an accused. Ergo, the trial Court must create a balance, discard its dilemmas in e with law at all stages of trial including the stage of consideration of arraignment. That the justice is served is primary, including the process of justice, which ought to be just and fair to all f guideline(s) to govern, the exercise of aspect of framing of charges by a Court, can possibly be laid down however, alluring this aspect may be. It is neither fathomable nor desirable to lay be to crystallize into a rigid definition, a judicial discretion, which even the Legislature has, for best of all reasons, left undetermined. Any attempt in this regard would be, to say the least, a quixotic endeavour. tional or different fact, may make a sea of difference between conclusions in two cases. Such exercise would thus, indubitably, be dependent upon the factual matrix of the particular ar The power as also the duty cast upon the Court, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, is a significant facet of criminal proceedings & hence the same ought to be undertaken in an The Court, while considering the aspect of framing of charges, ece of the prosecution but ought to consider this pivotal aspect keeping in view the interest of all concerned namely the prosecution (society at large), victim/complainant as also the accused; the interest of justice and fair A Court while considering the question of framing of charges, undoubtedly, has power to sift and weigh the material produced before it for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case ioned, at this stage, that the Court ought not to make a roving enquiry into the truthfulness, reliability, relevance or sufficiency etc. of such material brought before it since these aspects are required to be accounted for at the time of While sifting through the material placed before it the Court ought to consider the broad probabilities of the case, total affect of evidence/document produced before it, basic infirmities in the case, there prosecution, whether such material is opposed to common sense, whether the allegations and material brought in support thereof are patently absurd or inherently improbable to meet the test of a process of AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 9.1. charges, the c manner, rather than adopting a perfunctory, ritualisti approach. The c merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must adjudicate upon this pivotal aspect by balancing the competin all stakeholders; victim/complainant, and the accused possesses the power to sift and weigh the material on record for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a must esche truthfulness, reliability, or sufficiency of the material at this juncture, as these are matters strictly in the realm of trial. However, the Court is legally bound to examine whether the material avai uncontroverted, satisfies the essential ingredients of th to be charged suspicion, the Court is fully justified in framing charges; conversely, where the material yields a mere suspicion or where two views are equally plausible, the benefit must inevitably enure to the accused. 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) V. Where the material produced before the Court discloses grave/strong suspicion, the Court will be justified in framing charge(s) and proceed further. However, where such materi views are equally possible and the material gives rise to some suspicion but not grave/strong suspicion, then the Court ought not to frame charges against the accused. VI. There is no gainsaying that the factors/principles enumerated hereinabove are illustrative in nature for no inexorable formula can be laid down in this regard. In other words, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with exhaustive precision such factors/principles since every case has its own un conspectus.” It is thus, indubitably, clear that charges, the court is expected to proceed in an assiduous and discerning manner, rather than adopting a perfunctory, ritualisti approach. The court, while evaluating the question of charge, must not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must adjudicate upon this pivotal aspect by balancing the competin all stakeholders; namely, the prosecution (represen im/complainant, and the accused. While the Court undoubtedly possesses the power to sift and weigh the material on record for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie must eschew making a roving or fishing inquiry into the absolute truthfulness, reliability, or sufficiency of the material at this juncture, as these are matters strictly in the realm of trial. However, the Court is legally bound to examine whether the material avai uncontroverted, satisfies the essential ingredients of th to be charged. Where the material on record engenders a grave and strong suspicion, the Court is fully justified in framing charges; conversely, where material yields a mere suspicion or where two views are equally plausible, the benefit must inevitably enure to the accused. 18 Where the material produced before the Court discloses grave/strong suspicion, the Court will be justified in framing charge(s) and proceed further. However, where such material shows that two views are equally possible and the material gives rise to some suspicion but not grave/strong suspicion, then the Court ought not to frame There is no gainsaying that the factors/principles enumerated reinabove are illustrative in nature for no inexorable formula can be laid down in this regard. In other words, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with exhaustive precision such factors/principles since every case has its own unique factual clear that at the stage of framing of ourt is expected to proceed in an assiduous and discerning manner, rather than adopting a perfunctory, ritualistic, or mechanical ourt, while evaluating the question of charge, must not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must adjudicate upon this pivotal aspect by balancing the competing interests of the prosecution (representing society at large), the While the Court undoubtedly possesses the power to sift and weigh the material on record for the limited prima facie case has been spelled out, it w making a roving or fishing inquiry into the absolute truthfulness, reliability, or sufficiency of the material at this juncture, as these are matters strictly in the realm of trial. However, the Court is legally bound to examine whether the material available on record, if left uncontroverted, satisfies the essential ingredients of the offence(s) sought Where the material on record engenders a grave and strong suspicion, the Court is fully justified in framing charges; conversely, where material yields a mere suspicion or where two views are equally plausible, the benefit must inevitably enure to the accused. Where the material produced before the Court discloses grave/strong suspicion, the Court will be justified in framing charge(s) al shows that two views are equally possible and the material gives rise to some suspicion but not grave/strong suspicion, then the Court ought not to frame There is no gainsaying that the factors/principles enumerated reinabove are illustrative in nature for no inexorable formula can be laid down in this regard. In other words, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with exhaustive precision such ique factual age of framing of ourt is expected to proceed in an assiduous and discerning c, or mechanical ourt, while evaluating the question of charge, must not act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must g interests of ting society at large), the While the Court undoubtedly possesses the power to sift and weigh the material on record for the limited case has been spelled out, it w making a roving or fishing inquiry into the absolute truthfulness, reliability, or sufficiency of the material at this juncture, as these are matters strictly in the realm of trial. However, the Court is legally lable on record, if left e offence(s) sought Where the material on record engenders a grave and strong suspicion, the Court is fully justified in framing charges; conversely, where material yields a mere suspicion or where two views are equally AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 9.2. assumes paramount salience and a heightened degree of judici when the very foundational ingredient objective medical evidence. In cases where the l offence turns entirely upon the nature, severity, and provenance of an injury, the Court cannot bl exaggerated ocular accounts. Instead, the documentary medical record must be treated as the primary anchor of the diagnostic reality of whether an injury is simple sufficient to cause death is a matter capable of precise, objective, and scientific verification alone. clinical findings, radiological reports, and expert medical opinions assume determinative significance. before the Court inherently contradicts the prosecution's narrative, or facie fails to satisfy the rigorous sta to be charged, the Court is duty comfortably relegate the matter to the rigors of a protracted trial when the scientific metrics themselves fail to substantiate the charge. 10. hand. 10.1. 27.08.2023. A meticulous perusal of the medical opinions rendered by the Government unequivocally indicates that the injuries sustained by the compl strictly simple in nature. 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Crucially, this judicial exercise of sifting through the record assumes paramount salience and a heightened degree of judici when the very foundational ingredients of the offenc objective medical evidence. In cases where the l e turns entirely upon the nature, severity, and provenance of an injury, the Court cannot blindly accept speculative oral assertions or exaggerated ocular accounts. Instead, the documentary medical record must be treated as the primary anchor of the diagnostic reality of whether an injury is simple sufficient to cause death is a matter capable of precise, objective, and scientific verification alone. Consequently, at this threshold stage, the clinical findings, radiological reports, and expert medical opinions assume determinative significance. If the objective medical documentation placed before the Court inherently contradicts the prosecution's narrative, or fails to satisfy the rigorous statutory definitions of the offenc to be charged, the Court is duty-bound to intercede. T comfortably relegate the matter to the rigors of a protracted trial when the scientific metrics themselves fail to substantiate the charge. Now this Court reverts to the factual The alleged incident is stated to have transpired on 27.08.2023. A meticulous perusal of the medical opinions rendered by the Government medical officers, as extracted in paragraph 3 (supra), unequivocally indicates that the injuries sustained by the compl strictly simple in nature. Indubitably, the final report under Section 173 19 rucially, this judicial exercise of sifting through the record assumes paramount salience and a heightened degree of judicial gravity s of the offence are dependent upon objective medical evidence. In cases where the legal classification of an e turns entirely upon the nature, severity, and provenance of an indly accept speculative oral assertions or exaggerated ocular accounts. Instead, the documentary medical record must be treated as the primary anchor of the prima facie evaluation, as the diagnostic reality of whether an injury is simple or grievous or legally sufficient to cause death is a matter capable of precise, objective, and Consequently, at this threshold stage, the clinical findings, radiological reports, and expert medical opinions assume If the objective medical documentation placed before the Court inherently contradicts the prosecution's narrative, or ex- tutory definitions of the offences sought bound to intercede. The Court cannot comfortably relegate the matter to the rigors of a protracted trial when the scientific metrics themselves fail to substantiate the charge. Now this Court reverts to the factual milieu of the case in The alleged incident is stated to have transpired on 27.08.2023. A meticulous perusal of the medical opinions rendered by the medical officers, as extracted in paragraph 3 (supra), unequivocally indicates that the injuries sustained by the complainant were , the final report under Section 173 rucially, this judicial exercise of sifting through the record al gravity e are dependent upon egal classification of an e turns entirely upon the nature, severity, and provenance of an indly accept speculative oral assertions or exaggerated ocular accounts. Instead, the documentary medical record must evaluation, as the ally sufficient to cause death is a matter capable of precise, objective, and Consequently, at this threshold stage, the clinical findings, radiological reports, and expert medical opinions assume If the objective medical documentation placed - es sought he Court cannot comfortably relegate the matter to the rigors of a protracted trial when the of the case in The alleged incident is stated to have transpired on 27.08.2023. A meticulous perusal of the medical opinions rendered by the medical officers, as extracted in paragraph 3 (supra), ainant were , the final report under Section 173 AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) Cr.P.C. (Challan) incorporates a clinical opinion fro practitioner, that a tooth extraction pr and a half months post the incident. Furthermore, a critical evaluation of the subsequent medical opinion dated 22.11.2023 issued by Government Medical Officer, of the treatment records from the private cl Makeovers’, simple. Pertinently, the commencement of criminal trial for an offence involving grievous hurt as defined under Sectio predicated upon mere conjecture or a forensic vacuum. It is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that for a Court to frame charges under the penal provisions involving grievous hurt, there must exist a foundation establishing the specific statutory ingredients enumerated under Section 320 of the IPC. Where the medical evidence available on record, unequivocally characterizes the injuries as legally precluded from venturing absence of cogent, rebuttal material. Pertinently, the classification injuries under the code is not a matter of judicial caprice but a matter of scientific determination. As the maxim goes, credendum, Consequently, the Court must defer to the objective findings of medical experts, for while such an opinion is not significant probative value and acts as the primary compass in navigating complex and scientific facts that lie outside the ordinary experience of the 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Cr.P.C. (Challan) incorporates a clinical opinion fro practitioner, under whose care the complainant remained, that a tooth extraction procedure was performed on 10.11.2023, nearly two and a half months post the incident. Furthermore, a critical evaluation of the subsequent medical opinion dated 22.11.2023 issued by Government Medical Officer, which duly adverts to and takes cognizance of the treatment records from the private cl Makeovers’, reiterates and affirms the characterization of the injury as Pertinently, the commencement of criminal trial for an offence involving grievous hurt as defined under Sectio predicated upon mere conjecture or a forensic vacuum. It is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that for a Court to frame charges under the penal provisions involving grievous hurt, there must exist a oundation establishing the specific statutory ingredients enumerated under Section 320 of the IPC. Where the medical evidence available on record, unequivocally characterizes the injuries as legally precluded from venturing in the realm of grievous hurt, in the absence of cogent, rebuttal material. Pertinently, the classification injuries under the code is not a matter of judicial caprice but a matter of scientific determination. As the maxim goes, credendum, i.e. credence must be given to one skilled in his peculiar art. Consequently, the Court must defer to the objective findings of medical experts, for while such an opinion is not absolute significant probative value and acts as the primary compass in navigating complex and scientific facts that lie outside the ordinary experience of the 20 Cr.P.C. (Challan) incorporates a clinical opinion from a private dental e care the complainant remained, which reveals ocedure was performed on 10.11.2023, nearly two and a half months post the incident. Furthermore, a critical evaluation of the subsequent medical opinion dated 22.11.2023 issued by the which duly adverts to and takes cognizance of the treatment records from the private clinic, namely ‘Dental reiterates and affirms the characterization of the injury as Pertinently, the commencement of criminal trial for an offence involving grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of the IPC, cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture or a forensic vacuum. It is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that for a Court to frame charges under the penal provisions involving grievous hurt, there must exist a prima facie oundation establishing the specific statutory ingredients enumerated under Section 320 of the IPC. Where the medical evidence available on record, unequivocally characterizes the injuries as ‘simple’ in nature, the Court is in the realm of grievous hurt, in the absence of cogent, rebuttal material. Pertinently, the classification of injuries under the code is not a matter of judicial caprice but a matter of scientific determination. As the maxim goes, Cuilibet in sua arte perito est i.e. credence must be given to one skilled in his peculiar art. Consequently, the Court must defer to the objective findings of medical absolute conclusio, it possesses significant probative value and acts as the primary compass in navigating complex and scientific facts that lie outside the ordinary experience of the m a private dental which reveals ocedure was performed on 10.11.2023, nearly two and a half months post the incident. Furthermore, a critical evaluation of the which duly adverts to and takes cognizance inic, namely ‘Dental reiterates and affirms the characterization of the injury as Pertinently, the commencement of criminal trial for an offence n 320 of the IPC, cannot be predicated upon mere conjecture or a forensic vacuum. It is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence that for a Court to frame charges under prima facie oundation establishing the specific statutory ingredients enumerated under Section 320 of the IPC. Where the medical evidence available on record, in nature, the Court is in the realm of grievous hurt, in the of injuries under the code is not a matter of judicial caprice but a matter of rito est i.e. credence must be given to one skilled in his peculiar art. Consequently, the Court must defer to the objective findings of medical it possesses significant probative value and acts as the primary compass in navigating complex and scientific facts that lie outside the ordinary experience of the AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) Court. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the observations made by the Hon Mohammed Khan @ Rasiq Vs. The State through the Inspector of Police CRL RC(MD) No. 210 of 2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1982 SCC (Cri) 442, Court in Mutukdhari Singh and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1942 Patna 376; it has been observed as under: application of mind to ensure that essential offence is reflected in the material available on record. 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Court. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in a case titled as Mohammed Khan @ Rasiq Vs. The State through the Inspector of Police CRL RC(MD) No. 210 of 2024, wherein; while referring to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayur Panabhai Shah 1982 SCC (Cri) 442, and a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Mutukdhari Singh and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1942 Patna it has been observed as under: “8. Precedents on Proving "Fracture"/Grievous Hurt: 8.1. The Hon'ble Bombay High Co Atkare & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Crl.A. No.3500 of 2002, decided on 22.01.2018 (Supreme Court) emphasised that to return a finding of grievous hurt on the footing of fracture, the medical evidence must clearly establish the fracture; in the absence of radiological proof, Courts must exercise great caution in recording a finding of "fracture." 8.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat(1982) SCC (Cri) 442, held that the ipse dixit of a doctor without supporting material (like X conclusively establish a fracture so as to constitute grievous hurt; the prosecution must bring reliable medical evidence on record. 8.3. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in Mutukdhari Singh & v. Emperor AIR 1942 Patna 376, held that where the evidence is merely that a bone has been cut without proof of the extent (deep cut vs. superficial), Section 320 IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of proper medical proof; the finding of grievous hu evidence. 8.4. Kumar v. State 2022 (3) MLJ (Crl) 217, This Court reiterated that unless a fracture is proved or the condition is so glaringly obvious that a clinical examination alone leaves no manner of doubt, it would be unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved a fracture; mere reference in oral testimony is insufficient. 9. Fully fortified by the propositions supra, I am of the considered view that, unless the fact of fracture can be proved by evidence which is so glaring and obvious that a finding can be recorded by the Court relying on the clinical examination of the patient, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved fracture in the absence of radiological evidence. The act of framing of charges necessitates the judicial application of mind to ensure that essential offence is reflected in the material available on record. 21 Court. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the observations ’ble Madras High Court in a case titled as Rasiq Mohammed Khan @ Rasiq Vs. The State through the Inspector of Police; while referring to the dicta of the Mayur Panabhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat; and a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Mutukdhari Singh and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1942 Patna 8. Precedents on Proving "Fracture"/Grievous Hurt: 8.1. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sheshrao Namdeo Atkare & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Crl.A. No.3500 of 2002, decided on 22.01.2018 (Supreme Court) emphasised that to return a finding of grievous hurt on the footing of fracture, the medical evidence must ture; in the absence of radiological proof, Courts must exercise great caution in recording a finding of "fracture." 8.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat(1982) SCC (Cri) 442, held that the ipse dixit of a doctor supporting material (like X-ray/plate/report) is insufficient to conclusively establish a fracture so as to constitute grievous hurt; the prosecution must bring reliable medical evidence on record. 8.3. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in Mutukdhari Singh & Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1942 Patna 376, held that where the evidence is merely that a bone has been cut without proof of the extent (deep cut vs. superficial), Section 320 IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of proper medical proof; the finding of grievous hurt must rest on clear, objective 8.4. Kumar v. State 2022 (3) MLJ (Crl) 217, This Court reiterated that unless a fracture is proved or the condition is so glaringly obvious that a clinical examination alone leaves no manner of doubt, it unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved a fracture; mere reference in oral testimony is insufficient. 9. Fully fortified by the propositions supra, I am of the considered view that, unless the fact of fracture can be proved by laring and obvious that a finding can be recorded by the Court relying on the clinical examination of the patient, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved fracture in the absence of radiological evidence.” The act of framing of charges necessitates the judicial application of mind to ensure that essential actus reus of the alleged offence is reflected in the material available on record. The prosecution Court. A profitable reference in this regard can be made to the observations Rasiq ; of the ; and a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Mutukdhari Singh and Others Vs. Emperor; AIR 1942 Patna urt in Sheshrao Namdeo Atkare & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Crl.A. No.3500 of 2002, decided on 22.01.2018 (Supreme Court) emphasised that to return a finding of grievous hurt on the footing of fracture, the medical evidence must ture; in the absence of radiological proof, 8.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat(1982) SCC (Cri) 442, held that the ipse dixit of a doctor ray/plate/report) is insufficient to conclusively establish a fracture so as to constitute grievous hurt; the Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1942 Patna 376, held that where the evidence is merely that a bone has been cut without proof of the extent (deep cut vs. superficial), Section 320 IPC cannot be invoked in the absence of proper rt must rest on clear, objective 8.4. Kumar v. State 2022 (3) MLJ (Crl) 217, This Court reiterated that unless a fracture is proved or the condition is so glaringly obvious that a clinical examination alone leaves no manner of doubt, it unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved a fracture; mere 9. Fully fortified by the propositions supra, I am of the considered view that, unless the fact of fracture can be proved by laring and obvious that a finding can be recorded by the Court relying on the clinical examination of the patient, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved fracture in The act of framing of charges necessitates the judicial of the alleged The prosecution AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) must show the completion of all the ingredients of an o threshold stage, for a trial cannot be launched on the wings of a mere possibility. Ultimately, it would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice if an individual is subjected to the rigours and social stigma of a trial for an offence that, that the accused but ought to be arraigned as an accused of offence under Section 323 of IPC in this regard. 10.2. medical records issued by Dental Makeovers, contending that the tooth extraction performed on 10.11.2023 perforce brings the alleged injury within the ambit of Clause (vii) fracture and dislocation of tooth. However, this contention fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny when tested against the temporal proximity and the doctrine of occurred on 27.08.2023, the clinical extraction in question was done only on 10.11.2023. Such a protracted interval, in the absence of an unbroken chain of medical corroboration, severely attenuates the nexus between the alleged assault and the even speculative rather than substantive. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, to visit an accused with the rigours of prescribed penal liability, the consequence complained of must be direct, immediate and natural r the act alleged. The law does not take cognizance of remote or intervening causes, and the Court cannot 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) must show the completion of all the ingredients of an o threshold stage, for a trial cannot be launched on the wings of a mere possibility. Ultimately, it would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice if an individual is subjected to the rigours and social stigma of a trial for an that, ex facie is legally non-existent. Ergo, in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said accused ought to be arraigned for charge under Section 325 of IPC but ought to be arraigned as an accused of offence under Section 323 of C in this regard. The complainant has placed considerable reliance upon the medical records issued by Dental Makeovers, contending that the tooth extraction performed on 10.11.2023 perforce brings the alleged injury within the ambit of Clause (vii) of Section 320 of the IPC, pertaining to fracture and dislocation of tooth. However, this contention fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny when tested against the temporal proximity and the doctrine of causa causans .While the alleged scuffle is said t occurred on 27.08.2023, the clinical extraction in question was done only on 10.11.2023. Such a protracted interval, in the absence of an unbroken chain of medical corroboration, severely attenuates the nexus between the alleged assault and the eventual extraction, rendering the connection speculative rather than substantive. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, to visit an accused with the rigours of prescribed penal liability, the consequence complained of must be direct, immediate and natural r the act alleged. The law does not take cognizance of remote or intervening causes, and the Court cannot be invited to embark upon a journey of 22 must show the completion of all the ingredients of an offence even at this threshold stage, for a trial cannot be launched on the wings of a mere possibility. Ultimately, it would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice if an individual is subjected to the rigours and social stigma of a trial for an existent. in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said ought to be arraigned for charge under Section 325 of IPC but ought to be arraigned as an accused of offence under Section 323 of The complainant has placed considerable reliance upon the medical records issued by Dental Makeovers, contending that the tooth extraction performed on 10.11.2023 perforce brings the alleged injury of Section 320 of the IPC, pertaining to fracture and dislocation of tooth. However, this contention fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny when tested against the temporal proximity While the alleged scuffle is said to have occurred on 27.08.2023, the clinical extraction in question was done only on 10.11.2023. Such a protracted interval, in the absence of an unbroken chain of medical corroboration, severely attenuates the nexus between the tual extraction, rendering the connection speculative rather than substantive. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, to visit an accused with the rigours of prescribed penal liability, the consequence complained of must be direct, immediate and natural result of the act alleged. The law does not take cognizance of remote or intervening be invited to embark upon a journey of ffence even at this threshold stage, for a trial cannot be launched on the wings of a mere possibility. Ultimately, it would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice if an individual is subjected to the rigours and social stigma of a trial for an in the considered opinion of this Court, it cannot be said ought to be arraigned for charge under Section 325 of IPC but ought to be arraigned as an accused of offence under Section 323 of The complainant has placed considerable reliance upon the medical records issued by Dental Makeovers, contending that the tooth extraction performed on 10.11.2023 perforce brings the alleged injury of Section 320 of the IPC, pertaining to fracture and dislocation of tooth. However, this contention fails to withstand the judicial scrutiny when tested against the temporal proximity o have occurred on 27.08.2023, the clinical extraction in question was done only on 10.11.2023. Such a protracted interval, in the absence of an unbroken chain of medical corroboration, severely attenuates the nexus between the tual extraction, rendering the connection speculative rather than substantive. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, to visit an accused with the rigours of prescribed penal liability, the esult of the act alleged. The law does not take cognizance of remote or intervening be invited to embark upon a journey of AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) possibilities or probabilities, to bridge the evidentiary chasm. Consequently, the Court must refrain fr propter hoc where the prosecution alleged assault and subsequent extraction/ dislocation, the foundational fact required to invoke Section 320 of the IPC, remain missing. 10.3. formal charge against the Code (IPC) as well. It is a fundamental postulate of crimi that the sine qua non consequences of Section 331 IPC is the actual infliction of "grievous hurt" as statutorily defined. However, as paragraphs, the medica restricts the character of the injuries sustained by the complainant to "simple hurt." Section 331 IPC seeks to rest stands demolished. By no stretch scholastic or legal imagination can an injury certified as simple be inflated to meet the threshold of a grievous injury. Therefore, the objective medical reality of the case completely strips the prosecution's argument of its vitality for a graver off attract the provisions of Section 330 of the IPC, and completely excludes the applicability of Section 331 of the IPC. 10.4. that, a prima facie is made out against the accused, 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) possibilities or probabilities, to bridge the evidentiary chasm. Consequently, the Court must refrain from adopting a propter hoc fallacy. Ergo, in the factual where the prosecution has failed to establish a causal link between the alleged assault and subsequent extraction/ dislocation, the foundational fact required to invoke Section 320 of the IPC, remain missing. The learned trial Court below has directed the framing of a formal charge against the accused under Section 331 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well. It is a fundamental postulate of crimi sine qua non; the indispensable essence; consequences of Section 331 IPC is the actual infliction of "grievous hurt" as statutorily defined. However, as discussed paragraphs, the medical documentation available on record unequivocally restricts the character of the injuries sustained by the complainant to "simple hurt." Consequently, the very basis Section 331 IPC seeks to rest stands demolished. By no stretch scholastic or legal imagination can an injury certified as simple be inflated to meet the threshold of a grievous injury. Therefore, the objective medical reality of the case completely strips the prosecution's argument of its vitality for a graver offense; at best, the factual matrix would attract the provisions of Section 330 of the IPC, and completely excludes the applicability of Section 331 of the IPC. The argument advanced by the complainant prima facie case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out against the accused, fails to cut ice. 23 possibilities or probabilities, to bridge the evidentiary chasm. om adopting a post hoc ergo in the factual milieu of the petition in hand, as failed to establish a causal link between the alleged assault and subsequent extraction/ dislocation, the foundational fact required to invoke Section 320 of the IPC, remain missing. Court below has directed the framing of a under Section 331 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well. It is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence ; the indispensable essence; for inviting the penal consequences of Section 331 IPC is the actual infliction of "grievous hurt" discussed in the preceding sub- l documentation available on record unequivocally restricts the character of the injuries sustained by the complainant to basis upon which the charge under Section 331 IPC seeks to rest stands demolished. By no stretch of scholastic or legal imagination can an injury certified as simple be inflated to meet the threshold of a grievous injury. Therefore, the objective medical reality of the case completely strips the prosecution's argument of its ense; at best, the factual matrix would prima facie attract the provisions of Section 330 of the IPC, and completely excludes The argument advanced by the complainant—to the effect case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cut ice. A critical evaluation of the possibilities or probabilities, to bridge the evidentiary chasm. post hoc ergo , as failed to establish a causal link between the alleged assault and subsequent extraction/ dislocation, the foundational fact Court below has directed the framing of a under Section 331 of the Indian Penal nal jurisprudence for inviting the penal consequences of Section 331 IPC is the actual infliction of "grievous hurt" - l documentation available on record unequivocally restricts the character of the injuries sustained by the complainant to upon which the charge under of scholastic or legal imagination can an injury certified as simple be inflated to meet the threshold of a grievous injury. Therefore, the objective medical reality of the case completely strips the prosecution's argument of its prima facie attract the provisions of Section 330 of the IPC, and completely excludes to the effect case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) A critical evaluation of the AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) nature and body/ juxtaposed with the totality of the attend milieu of the case, indubitably demonstrates that the essential ingredients of an "attempt to murder" are conspicuously absent. provisions of Section 307 IPC, there must coexist both the requisite criminal intent ( such circumstances that, had it caused death, the accused would be guilty of murder. In the matrix of the present case, the objective medical metrics utterly falsify any such sinister int demonstrably superficial and simple, completely sever the causal link required to sustain so grave a charge. It is a canonical principle of criminal law that a criminal charge cannot be anchored upon mere conjectu flights of fancy, or hyper onto a factual foundation of purely simple injuries herein, would amount to a patent misapplication of law and an exercise in reductio ad absurdum to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Roshan Lal vs. The State of Haryana and another = 2026 INSC 524 relevant whereof reads thus: 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) body/site of the injuries detailed in paragraph 3(ii) (supra), when juxtaposed with the totality of the attendant circumstances and the factual of the case, indubitably demonstrates that the essential ingredients of an "attempt to murder" are conspicuously absent. provisions of Section 307 IPC, there must coexist both the requisite inal intent (mens rea) and an overt act ( such circumstances that, had it caused death, the accused would be guilty of murder. In the matrix of the present case, the objective medical metrics utterly falsify any such sinister intent or lethal gravity. The injuries, being demonstrably superficial and simple, completely sever the causal link required to sustain so grave a charge. It is a canonical principle of criminal law that a criminal charge cannot be anchored upon mere conjectu flights of fancy, or hyper-hyperbole. To graft a charge of Section 307 IPC onto a factual foundation of purely simple injuries would amount to a patent misapplication of law and an exercise in reductio ad absurdum. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Roshan Lal vs. The State of Haryana and another = 2026 INSC 524 relevant whereof reads thus: “30. Having concluded as above, we now issue as to whether the injuries in question were inflicted with the requisite intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances that, had death ensued, the act would amount to murder. 31. The words 'such intention' found i intention referred to in Section 300 death; (ii) intention to cause such bodily injury, which the offender knows is likely to cause death; (iii) intention to cause such bodily injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The essential ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder is the intention to cause death. Such intention exists prior to the actual attempt and must be established independently of Once the requisite intention to commit murder is proved, the eventual 24 site of the injuries detailed in paragraph 3(ii) (supra), when ant circumstances and the factual of the case, indubitably demonstrates that the essential ingredients of an "attempt to murder" are conspicuously absent. To attract the penal provisions of Section 307 IPC, there must coexist both the requisite ) and an overt act (actus reus) committed under such circumstances that, had it caused death, the accused would be guilty of murder. In the matrix of the present case, the objective medical metrics ent or lethal gravity. The injuries, being demonstrably superficial and simple, completely sever the causal link required to sustain so grave a charge. It is a canonical principle of criminal law that a criminal charge cannot be anchored upon mere conjectures, hyperbole. To graft a charge of Section 307 IPC onto a factual foundation of purely simple injuries, in facts as involved would amount to a patent misapplication of law and an exercise in In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Roshan Lal vs. The State of Haryana and another = 2026 INSC 524, 30. Having concluded as above, we now proceed to examine the crucial issue as to whether the injuries in question were inflicted with the requisite intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances that, had death ensued, the act would amount to murder. 31. The words 'such intention' found in Section 307 IPC, refer to the Section 300 IPC. It means: (i) intention to cause death; (ii) intention to cause such bodily injury, which the offender knows is likely to cause death; (iii) intention to cause such bodily injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The essential ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder is the intention to cause death. Such intention exists prior to the actual attempt and must be established independently of the act itself or the actus reus. Once the requisite intention to commit murder is proved, the eventual site of the injuries detailed in paragraph 3(ii) (supra), when ant circumstances and the factual of the case, indubitably demonstrates that the essential ingredients of To attract the penal provisions of Section 307 IPC, there must coexist both the requisite ) committed under such circumstances that, had it caused death, the accused would be guilty of murder. In the matrix of the present case, the objective medical metrics ent or lethal gravity. The injuries, being demonstrably superficial and simple, completely sever the causal link required to sustain so grave a charge. It is a canonical principle of criminal res, hyperbole. To graft a charge of Section 307 IPC , in facts as involved would amount to a patent misapplication of law and an exercise in In this regard, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as , proceed to examine the crucial issue as to whether the injuries in question were inflicted with the requisite intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances that, had IPC, refer to the IPC. It means: (i) intention to cause death; (ii) intention to cause such bodily injury, which the offender knows is likely to cause death; (iii) intention to cause such bodily injury, The essential ingredient of the offence of attempt to murder is the intention to cause death. Such intention exists prior to the actual attempt the act itself or the actus reus. Once the requisite intention to commit murder is proved, the eventual AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) invocation o unsustainable. 10.5. complainant despite the existence of specific allegations in the FIR, is wholly devoid of merit and does not commend acceptance. A bare but meaningful perusal of the report dated 29.09.2023 unequivocally reveals th section 379 itself, upon due consideration of the material collected by the investigating agency including the statements of witnesses and other attendant circumstances form upon appraisal of the evidentiary substratum, formed the ingredients of Section 379 Court cannot be faulted for refraning from framing charge 379-B of the IPC. It is trite law that charges cannot be framed on the basis of bald and omnibus allegations bereft of foundational material. In view thereof, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, Section 379 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) outcome of the attempt becomes irrelevant, unless the attempt culminates in death, in which case the offence would fall within the absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision cannot be sustained. 32. Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words spoken by the accused at the time of the incident parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the invocation of Section 307 IPC is entirely unwarranted and legally unsustainable. Pertinently, the contention advanced on behalf of the complainant qua non-framing of charge under section 379 despite the existence of specific allegations in the FIR, is wholly devoid of merit and does not commend acceptance. A bare but meaningful perusal of the report dated 29.09.2023 unequivocally reveals th section 379-B of the IPC stood deleted during the course of investigation itself, upon due consideration of the material collected by the investigating agency including the statements of witnesses and other attendant circumstances forming part of the record. Once the investigating agency, upon appraisal of the evidentiary substratum, formed the ingredients of Section 379-B of the IPC to be conspicuously absent. The learned trial Court cannot be faulted for refraning from framing charge B of the IPC. It is trite law that charges cannot be framed on the basis of bald and omnibus allegations bereft of foundational material. In view thereof, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, to the extent, it refrains from framing charge under Section 379-B of the IPC. 25 outcome of the attempt becomes irrelevant, unless the attempt culminates in death, in which case the offence would fall within Section 300 IPC. In absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words spoken by the accused at the time of the incident, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered.” Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the f Section 307 IPC is entirely unwarranted and legally Pertinently, the contention advanced on behalf of the framing of charge under section 379-B of the IPC, despite the existence of specific allegations in the FIR, is wholly devoid of merit and does not commend acceptance. A bare but meaningful perusal of the report dated 29.09.2023 unequivocally reveals that the offence under B of the IPC stood deleted during the course of investigation itself, upon due consideration of the material collected by the investigating agency including the statements of witnesses and other attendant ing part of the record. Once the investigating agency, upon appraisal of the evidentiary substratum, formed the ingredients of B of the IPC to be conspicuously absent. The learned trial Court cannot be faulted for refraning from framing charge under section B of the IPC. It is trite law that charges cannot be framed in vacuo or on the basis of bald and omnibus allegations bereft of foundational material. In view thereof, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the he extent, it refrains from framing charge under outcome of the attempt becomes irrelevant, unless the attempt culminates IPC. In absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words spoken , the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the f Section 307 IPC is entirely unwarranted and legally Pertinently, the contention advanced on behalf of the B of the IPC, despite the existence of specific allegations in the FIR, is wholly devoid of merit and does not commend acceptance. A bare but meaningful perusal of at the offence under B of the IPC stood deleted during the course of investigation itself, upon due consideration of the material collected by the investigating agency including the statements of witnesses and other attendant ing part of the record. Once the investigating agency, upon appraisal of the evidentiary substratum, formed the ingredients of B of the IPC to be conspicuously absent. The learned trial under section or on the basis of bald and omnibus allegations bereft of foundational material. In view thereof, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the he extent, it refrains from framing charge under AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) 10.6. assailing the which resulted in the exoneration of the ac and ultimately deletion of Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same are stage of proceedings. The jurisdictional scope of the current challenge strictly tethered to the legality, propriety and correctness of the order framing charges against the petitioners (herein). Since the petitioners were the sole individuals recommended for prosecution by the investigating agency; later on affir cognizance; distinct from the immediate question of whether a sustain the charges against the petitioners (herein). To delve into of the exoneration of accused individuals not challaned, (i.e. Respondents No. 6 to 15 in CRR this court and risk causing prejudice. Accordingly, this Court maintains a stance of judicial neut opinion/findings on the complicity or lack thereof regarding the persons not 11. framed against the petitioners 341, 201, 506, 34 of IPC. Decision 12. (CRR-2289 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) Regarding the submissions assailing the conclusion(s) in Chargesheet / which resulted in the exoneration of the accused not challaned by the police and ultimately deletion of Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same are cor stage of proceedings. The jurisdictional scope of the current challenge strictly tethered to the legality, propriety and correctness of the framing charges against the petitioners (herein). Since the petitioners were the sole individuals recommended for prosecution by the investigating agency; later on affirmed by the jurisdictional cognizance; the status of those exonerated remains a collateral matter, distinct from the immediate question of whether a sustain the charges against the petitioners (herein). To delve into of the exoneration of accused individuals not challaned, (i.e. Respondents No. 6 to 15 in CRR-1437-2025) would be to overstep the instant remit of this court and risk causing prejudice. Accordingly, this Court maintains a stance of judicial neutrality and refrains from rendering any opinion/findings on the complicity or lack thereof regarding the challaned. In view of the preceding rumination framed against the petitioners – accused (herein) under 341, 201, 506, 34 of IPC. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, the revision petitions 2289-2025 and CRR-1437-2025) are 26 preferred by the complainant Chargesheet / Final Report dated 08.02.2024, cused not challaned by the police and ultimately deletion of Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, this Court is of coram non judicce at the present stage of proceedings. The jurisdictional scope of the current challenge is strictly tethered to the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned framing charges against the petitioners (herein). Since the petitioners were the sole individuals recommended for prosecution by the med by the jurisdictional Court taking the status of those exonerated remains a collateral matter, distinct from the immediate question of whether a prima facie case exists to sustain the charges against the petitioners (herein). To delve into the merits of the exoneration of accused individuals not challaned, (i.e. Respondents 2025) would be to overstep the instant remit of this court and risk causing prejudice. Accordingly, this Court maintains a rality and refrains from rendering any opinion/findings on the complicity or lack thereof regarding the accused the preceding rumination, charges ought to be (herein) under Sections 323, 330, In view of the prevenient ratiocination, the revision petitions are disposed of in the following preferred by the complainant , cused not challaned by the police and ultimately deletion of Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC, this Court is of at the present is impugned framing charges against the petitioners (herein). Since the petitioners were the sole individuals recommended for prosecution by the taking the status of those exonerated remains a collateral matter, case exists to the merits of the exoneration of accused individuals not challaned, (i.e. Respondents 2025) would be to overstep the instant remit of this court and risk causing prejudice. Accordingly, this Court maintains a rality and refrains from rendering any accused be Sections 323, 330, In view of the prevenient ratiocination, the revision petitions in the following AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2289-2025 (O&M) CRR-1437-2025 (O&M) terms: (i) learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram that the petitioners offences under Sections 323, 330, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC. consequences to ensue (ii) construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned concerned (iii) May 29, 2026 Ajay/mahavir 2025 (O&M) and 2025 (O&M) The impugned order (order dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram that the petitioners in CRR-2289-2025 ought to be arraigned as accused for offences under Sections 323, 330, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC. consequences to ensue accordingly. It is however, clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the concerned Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall , 2026 /mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 27 dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram) is modified to the extent ought to be arraigned as accused for offences under Sections 323, 330, 341, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC. Requisite clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the Court shall proceed further, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No by the is modified to the extent ought to be arraigned as accused for Requisite clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the AJAY KUMAR 2026.05.29 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document