B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 27,1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
(2.) SMT . Suchintara W/o Shri Dharamveer Gehlot lodged a First Information Report at the Police Station, Surajpole, Udaipur on April 29, 1984. It was alleged in that report that she and her servant Shyam were sitting in her house when some boys, including the younger son of the landlord and one Vijay Shreemali came there and gave beatings to his son Pankaj and threw something in his eyes and forcibly took him on the motor -cycle. On the basis of this information, a case under Sections 363 and 365 IPC was registered. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against Brij Mohan and Naresh Chandra alias Naresh Kumar under Sections 363, 365, 325, 323/34 I.P.C. before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who, by his order dated July 3, 1984, took cognizance against Brij Mohan and Naresh Kumar for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 325 and 323/34 I.P.C. and issued process. The petitioners, thereafter, appeared before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who, by his order dated September 25,1986, framed the charges under Sections 365, 342, 325 and 323/34, I.P.C. Dissatisfied with the order, framing the charges, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur, by his order dated March 27, 1990, dismissed the revision -petition filed by the petitioners as being not maintainable. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that from the bare reading of the statements on the record and the other evidence collected by the prosecution, no case under Sections 363, 365, 342, 325 or 323/34 I.P.C. is made -out against the petitioners and the learned lower Court has committed an error in framing the charges against the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned lower Court, framing the charges against the petitioners. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties.;