RAVINDRA SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.4.2008 passed by learned Addi ­tional Session Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Mathura in S.T. No. 123 of 2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, F.T.C. -I, Mathura whereby Trial Court has come to the conclusion that on the basis of the ma ­terial collected by the I.O. printa facie of ­fence under sections 336/34, 308/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is made out and framed the charges under aforesaid offences. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by O.P. No, 2 Munna on 15.5.2007 at P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura in Case Crime No. 361 of 2007 under sections 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C. In the said incident the first in ­formant Munna and Md. Iliyas had sustained the injuries, according to the X -ray report of Mohd. Iliyas a depressed fracture on frontal bone of skull was found but in X -ray report of Munna nothing abnormal was detected thereafter the supplementary re ­ports were prepared in which the injury having depressed fracture of frontal bone of skull was found grievous in nature but the injuries of Munna were found simple in nature. The matter was investigated by the I.O. who submitted the charge -sheet dated 31.5.2007 against the applicant and two other co -accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 336, 504,506 and 308 I.P.C. on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the applicant filed an application under section 227 Cr.P.C. on 2.4.2008 claiming the discharge, in the Court of learned "Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. No. 1, Mathura on the ground that there is a contradiction in the medical evidence, site plan, statement of the witnesses and no independent witness has been interrogated by the I.O. during investigation. Thereafter, Iliyas the injured Hiyas moved an application in the Trial Court mentioning therein that his subse ­quent medical examination report may be taken on the record, the same was taken the record and its copy was given to the Coun ­sel of the defence thereafter the discharge application was filed by the applicant which was rejected on 3.5.2008 and the charges have been framed on 22.7.2008.
(3.) IT is contended by that learned Counsel for the applicant that the im ­pugned order dated 29.4.2008 by which the medical examination report has been kept on the record and its copy has been given to the Counsel for the defence is illegal. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court has illegally rejected the application under sec ­tion 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant after considering the subsequent medical exami ­nation report which was not part of the investigation and considering the same the charge has also been illegally framed under section 308 I.P.C. because up to the stage of the charge only the material collected by the I.O. is to be considered, no extraneous material can be considered for the framing of the charge.;