CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 121 CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 MOHD. SANJAY KHAN ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Haryana. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The revision petition challenges order dated 13.02.2026 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Son`ipat, vide which charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 289, 125, 110(2), 126 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act in FIR No. 252, dated 30.06.2025, Police Station Sonipat, Sadar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat framed charge sheet under Sections 289, 125, 110(2), 126 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25 of Arms Act against the petitioner, even though allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, did not disclose essential ingredients of Section 110 BNS. FIR version did not allege any intention or knowledge to the petitioner to attract the applicability of Section 110 BNS. At best, it was a case of rash and negligent driving falling within the scope of Section 281 BNS. It was further urged that AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -2- there was neither any injury caused to the Bus driver nor any of the passengers nor any other material indicating any intention to cause death. Charge sheet was mechanically framed by learned trial Court and the order framing charges, which suffered from patent illegality and non-application of mind, deserves to be set aside. 3. The facts, as per FIR, are that Siya Ram son of Krishan, driver in Haryana Roadways, Jind Depot. reported to the police that on 30.06.2025, he along with conductor Rakesh, started with passengers on bus bearing registration No. HR-56-GV-7028 from Jind Depot for Delhi. When he reached village Lathholly after Gohana, a Fortuner Car bearing registration No. HR-20- AK-0001 came in front of the bus. He blew horn of the bus to get side but the car driver did not give him way and took off at high speed. He collected passengers from the next bus stand, Gohana. When he again reached the road, the car driver came in front of the bus and again did not give him way. He blew horn of the bus to get side but to no avail. When he reached near village Badwasni, the same car driver took out a pistol, which he started waving. He video graphed the incident. They stopped the car driver and the passengers of the bus came out of vehicle. The car driver suddenly tried to drive his car over them from behind at high speed, with the intention of killing the passengers, but they had a narrow escape. He drove away with his vehicle, which overturned after some distance. They reached at the spot, apprehended the driver and informed the police. The police arrived and the driver was made over. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -3- 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court, the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368, while discussing the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, held as under: “(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) if on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -4- (v) at the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 5. Section 110 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which provides punishment for committing culpable homicide is extracted as under: “Section 110: Attempt to commit culpable homicide IPC Section 308 Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -5- term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Illustration: A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.” 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alister Anthony Pareira vs State Of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeals No. 1318-1320 of 2007, decided on 12.01.2012, where accused were tried for the offence under Section 304 Part I and 338 IPC for killing 07 persons sleeping on the footpath by driving his car rashly and negligently with the knowledge that people were sleeping on the footpath and that he was likely to cause death of those persons, observed as under: “40. Rash and negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A person, doing an act of rash or negligent driving, if aware of a risk that a particular consequence is likely to result and that result occurs, may be held guilty not only of the act but also of the result. As a matter of law 41. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -6- that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. 42. There is no incongruity, if simultaneous with the offence under Section 304 Part II, a person who has done an act so rashly or negligently endangering human life or the personal safety of the others and causes grievous hurt to any person is tried for the offence under Section 338 IPC. 43. In view of the above, in our opinion there is no impediment in law for an offender being charged for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and also under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. The two charges under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 338 IPC can legally co-exist in a case of single rash or negligent act where a rash or negligent act is done with the knowledge of likelihood of its dangerous consequences.” 7. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist that the allegations in the FIR only disclosed offence of rash and negligent driving within the contours of Section 281 BNS and no charge under Section 110 BNS could be framed, is to be repelled. Statement of the complainant which formed the basis of the FIR discloses grave suspicion against the petitioner attracting offence under Section 110 BNS and the Court was fully justified in framing charge thereunder. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court is not required AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1435-2026 (O&M) -7- to hold an elaborate enquiry, only prima facie case is to be seen. The evidence cannot be weighed as it is done while conducting a trial. The allegations, taken at their face value prima facie disclose ingredients of offences under Sections 110, 281, 126, 126 BNS and Section 25 Arms Act. There is no apparent illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only in the context of the charges framed against the petitioner and shall not influence the final decision on merits. Learned trial Court shall dispose of the trial in accordance with law on its own merits on the basis of evidence led before it. 9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JULY 03, 2026 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2026.07.07 09:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document