Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and Respondent No. 2 and learned AGA for Respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition for quashing the order dated 17.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut in S.T. No. 260 of 2003, State v. Pradeep Giri and Anr., whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at the conclusion that the charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34 and 506 IPC were liable to be framed against the applicants. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the learned trial Court had earlier framed a charge under Section 307 IPC on 25.8.2006 against the applicants but this Court (Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.) allowed the applicant's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and remanded the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration. Accordingly, the lower Court reconsidered the matter and passed the impugned order dated 17.9.2008. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the injured had sustained only one superficial injury on his hand, which was simple in nature, therefore, the charge under Section 307/34 IPC was not made out.
(3.) THE learned Trial Court has passed an elaborate order holding that the facts and circumstances of the case fully justify framing of the charge under Section 307/34 IPC against the applicants. It may not be out of context to mention that at the stage of charge the learned trial Court was not required to write a detailed judgment and to record a final verdict. What was required from the trial Court was to see whether or not the charge under Section 307/34 IPC was made out from the materials on record. If the trial Court on considering the materials on record, arrived at the conclusion that charge under Section 307/34 IPC was made out, it is not open to the High Court to substitute its own judgment in exercise of inherent power.;