Ashok Parihar, J. - (1.) A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioners on 21.11.1996 for an incident alleged to have taken place on the same date. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302 & 336 IPC. Thereafter, after considering the material on record, the trial Court framed charges against the petitioners under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 323 & 323/149-IPC vide order dated 31.8.1998. The above order dated 31.8.1998 framing charges against the petitioners is under challenge in the present revision petition by the petitioners with a further prayer for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioners in the Sessions Case No. 14/1997, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake/District Jaipur.
(2.) Mr. Dhankar, while relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 SC page 1489 , State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. reported in 1997(1) Crimes page 275 & State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Ors. reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. page 944 , has assailed the impugned order of the trial Court mainly on the ground that no reasons have been recorded by the trial Court while framing charges against the petitioners under different Sections. It has further been alleged that as per the Post Mortem Report there were only four injuries on the body of the deceased, whereas all the six petitioners have been charged under section 302 IPC, as such, the charges have not been framed by the trial Court properly.
(3.) Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order has submitted that there has been enough material before the trial Court for framing charges against the petitioners and no interference is called for by this Court at this stage. Mr. Mitra has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya reported in (1990) 4 SCC page 76 and also the case of Priya Sharan Maharaj (supra).;