- (1.) Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA and perused the record.
(2.) By means of this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Gonda in Session Trial No. 210 of 2016, State Vs. Shiv Balak Pandey and others arising out of case crime no. 220 of 2015 under sections 147,323,325,504,506, 307 and 308 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali City, District Gonda, whereby the learned trial court has rejected the application for discharge moved by the accused and fixed the case for framing of charge under sections 147,307/149,323/149,325/149, 504 and 506 IPC.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that First Information Report was registered on 18.3.2015 against the petitioners at case crime no. 220/2015 under sections 323,504,506, 308 and 147 IPC with allegation that on 17.03.2015 when complainant Sushila Devi alongwith her husband Pawan Kumar Mishra, Hari Ram Yadav and Hamid was coming back from Gonda by Car No. PB10G 5535 and at about 9.00 p.m. they were waiting for opening of the railway crossing near Soni Gumati, Shiv Balak Pandey who is inimical with the complainant, alongwith his sons Upendra Nath and Jitendra Nath came and beaten her driver and Hamid and got them fled away. They also dragged her husband from the Car forcibly and beaten him by iron rod and hockey. They also put her husband on the railway track so that he may come under the train. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under sections 147,308,323,325,504, 506 and 307 IPC, which is pending trial. Thereafter the application for discharge was moved by the accused stating therein that there is no allegation that there was intention of the accused to commit murder of the complainant or her husband. Injuries were found simple. The Doctor has not stated the injuries to be dangerous which could have caused the death of injured, hence the accused cannot be charged under section 307 IPC.;