RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the order of framing charge by the trial Court on 30.11.2004 as well as the order dated 16,6.2007 passed by the learned revisional Court. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Magistrate had framed charges against the accused-petitioner for the offence, inter alia, Sections 392/149 and 347/149 I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned revisional Court had also rejected the revision petition preferred by the accused-petitioner. The learned trial Court, on 3.3.2005 had summoned the witnesses in the case. 3. After having carefully considered the orders passed by both the Courts below, I am of the considered opinion that no illegality or infirmity has been committed in the said orders so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, there is no just reason for interfering in the finding recorded by the Courts below. This view of mine is supported by the Apex Court in the case of Ramkaran v. Gyarsi and Anr., (2005) 12 SCC 341, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "We have perused the order of the High Court and we also requested counsel appearing for the respondent to show us from the judgment of the High Court any reason recorded by the High Court for setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. We have found none, and counsel for the respondent has also not been able to find any, nor could he point out any consideration of the evidence in the judgment of the High Court to satisfy us that after consideration of the material on record the High Court for reasons recorded by it has set aside the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. The High Court has simply observed that a bare reading of Chapter DC of the Criminal Procedure Code would show that necessary provisions have been made for maintenance of wife, children and parents under the law. The Court has only to consider all circumstances on the basis of evidence brought on record. It further observed that in the present case, the petitioner wife has been able to prove that she has sufficient reasons for her not to live with her husband. The above observations only record a conclusion without any reasoning or consideration of eviderice. It was submitted before us by counsel for the respondent that the High Court was exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even if it be so, there is nothing in law which empowers the High Court to set aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below even without adverting to the evidence or recording reasons. We find the judgment of the High Court to be perverse."
(2.) Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed, as being devoid of merits. Petition dismissed. ;