- (1.) The matrix of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, in the wake of complaint/affidavit of complainant Partap Singh s/o Sunehra Singh, respondent No.2 (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against himself, Jyoti d/o Sunder Lal, Kamla w/o Suresh Kumar, Poonam w/o Raj Kumar alias Raju, Shania Mirja w/o Mirja Akil Beg, Sunita Sharma w/o Suresh Sharma, Satbir Singh s/o Malkhan Singh, Mohan Lal Saini s/o Dayanand Saini and SI Partap (petitioner), vide FIR No.656 dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P6), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss 384, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 376(2)(g) IPC, Sections 7 & 13 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of The Immortal Trafficking Act by the police of Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.
(2.) After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan), the indicated accused were accordingly chargesheeted to face the trial of pointed offences, by virtue of impugned order dated 24.9.2013 and the case was slated for evidence of prosecution by the trial Court.
(3.) Aggrieved thereby, petitioner SI Partap has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC, to challenge the clause seventhly of the impugned charge-sheet, by way of which, he was charge sheeted with the aid of section 120-B alongwith other main accused for the commission of an offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) IPC by the trial Court.;