JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dated December 23, 1980 framing a charge under section 330. Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Bhanwar Singh. 2. The petitioner Bhanwar Singh is a Head Constable in the police department and was posted at police station. Bagora, District Jalore, at the relevant time. On May 21, 1976 a first information report was lodged at the police station, Bagora by Mohandas alleging theft of certain articles from his shop by Mangla, son of Rewate Mali. A case u/ss. 457 and 380. Indian Penal Code was registered. Mangla, who was named in the first information report an accused person was arrested on May 30, 1976 and police remand was allowed by the Magistrate concerned on May 31, 1976. Some recovery was alleged to have been made on June 1, 1976. Thereafter on June 3, 1976 Rewata Mali, father of Mangla filed a complaint before the Magistrate that the petitioner Bhanwar Singh in the course of investigation had inflicted injuries to Mangla. 3. At the instance of the learned Magistrate, a complaint was filed against the applicant Bhanwar Singh alleging that he had caused injuries to Mangla for the purpose of obtaining information under section 27 of the Evidence Act and in the course of making some recoveries. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of four witnesses, including Mangla and thereafter framed a charge against the applicant Bhanwar Singh under S. 330. Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence at all on the basis of which the charge could have been framed against the petitioner. Mangla, who was examined by the learned Magistrate, denied that any injury was caused to him by the petitioner Bhanwar Singh, although he stated that while be was in police custody Balwant Ram, Ramlal and Sanwal had given him a beating. Mangla was declared hostile and the Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine him but nothing material was elicited from him in cross-examination. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no previous statement of Mangla with which he could have been confronted and the learned Magistrate was not even justified in declaring him hostile. The complaint was filed by Manglas father Rewata and Rewata was also examined in support of the complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no previous statement of Mangla with which he could have been confronted and the learned Magistrate was not even justified in declaring him hostile. The complaint was filed by Manglas father Rewata and Rewata was also examined in support of the complaint. Learned counsel appears to be right in his submission. Mangla, when examined by the learned Magistrate clearly stated that the petitioner Bhanwar Singh was not the person who had beaten him while he was in police custody, but he named three other persons. If Mangla himself has categorically stated' that Bhanwar Singh petitioner had not caused injuries to him, there was not even a prima facie case against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in framing a charge against Bhanwar Singh petitioner under Section 330, Indian Penal Code. The entire case appears to have proceeded against the petitioner on the basis that he was the Investigating Officer and that Mangla was beaten while in police custody and in the course of investigation of the theft case. Thus it is merely a matter of presumption that the injuries, which were caused to Mangla while he was in police custody, might have been inflicted by Bhanwar Singh petitioner. However, Mangla having himself dispelled the presumption by categorically stating that Bhanwar Singh did not cause him any injuries, nor it has been stated by him that the other three persons had caused injuries to him under the direction of or at the investigation of Bhanwar Singh petitioner. Mangla might have been beaten while he was in police custody and he might have received injuries as a result thereof but a prosecution in respect thereof should have been launched against the persons who were responsible for causing such injuries and not against Bhanwar Singh. The mere fact that Bhanwar Singh petitioner was the Investigating Officer could not make him criminally liable for the action of other subordinate police officers, who might have beaten Mangla while he was in police custody. 5. In this view of the matter, I find that there is not even prima facie material on the record, on the basis of which a charge under section 330, Indian Penal Code could have been framed against the petitioner Bhanwar Singh. 5. In this view of the matter, I find that there is not even prima facie material on the record, on the basis of which a charge under section 330, Indian Penal Code could have been framed against the petitioner Bhanwar Singh. The application under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dated December 23, 1980 is set aside and the charge framed against Bhanwar Singh petitioner under section 330, Indian Penal Code is quashed.Petition allowed. *******