Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 38/2000 whereby he ordered that charges for offence under Sections 147, 307/149, 332, 353,451, 323 and 427 I.P.G. be framed against the petitioners. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- (i) On 9.1 1.99 one FIR No. 79/99 was registered at the Police Station, Merta City for offence under Sections 458, 427 and 323/34 I,P.C. and investigation of that case was going on. (ii) On 1 0.1 1.99, Bhagwan Singh a police personnel lodged a report with the police station Merta Road stating that.in investigation of FIR No. 79/99, the police came to know. that the accused persons Anil Bishnoi, Ratan Lal, and Rajkumar were absconding after sitting in a Jeep.No. RJ-21-CST-5. This jeep was stopped by the police and in that jeep apart from above mentioned persons, Dilip, and one Hari were also there and seeing the police, persons sitting in the jeep stated that the police party had come and they be killed and that the jeep was being driven by the accused petitioner Anil and the accused petitioner Dalip was sitting adjacent to him and rest were sitting in the back side of the jeep and with an intention to beat, the accused petitioner Anil dashed the jeep against Bhagwan Singh and Dharma Ram, as a result of which Bhagwan Singh and Dharma Ram received injuries. 3. On this report, police registered a case for offence under Sections 458, 427 and 323/34, I.P.C. However, police submitted challan for offence under Sections 147, 307, 458, 457, 353, 332 and 323/34 I.P.C. 4. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.7.2001 ordered to frame charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 147, 307/149, 332, 353, 451, 323 and 427 I.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his arguments and has argued that so far as offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. is concerned, no case is made out as the jeep simply dashed against the two injured persons and they received simple injuries of abrasions and there was no injury of the nature that could be called crushed injury. Hence, the portion of the order by which the learned Sessions Judge framed charge for offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned P.P. submits that the order of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality and it does not require interference by this Court. 7. I have heard both. 8. In my opinion looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of injuries, no case for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out as the two injured received simple injuries like abrasions. Therefore, no case for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out prima facie. Hence the part of the order dated 17.7.2001 whereby charge for offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C has been framed cannot be sustained and the revision petition is liable to be partly accepted. 9. For the reasons mentioned above the present revision is partly allowed and part of the order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 38/2000 by which the learned Sessions Judge ordered to frame charge for offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. against the petitioners is set aside and the rest order is maintained. Petition partly allowed.;