JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two revision petitions have been filed, one by the State, and other by the complainant, challenging the same order, and therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, purportedly passed u/s. 227 Cr.P.C., has discharged all the accused persons of the offences, for which the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and they were committed. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused persons for the offences u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 324, 323 & 452 IPC. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.1999 at 1.30 p.m., a report was lodged by one Mohan Lal at Police Station Merta City, alleging that in the last evening, his brother Pukhraj and Sohanlal were sitting in the house of Pukhraj, at which time, the accused persons named therein, came duly armed with Swords and Farsies and started hurling abuses. However, still when the brothers did not come out of the house, the accused persons entered into the house and inflicted injuries to Pukhraj and Sohanlal with intention to kill them. The blows are said to have been warded of by hands, which were injured. On this report, FIR No. 50/99 was registered. However, after investigation, a final negative report was given on the ground that there is a cross case being FIR No. 49/99, wherein Shrawan Ram and Motilal expired, for which the petitioner and his party are the accused persons and that the present report has been lodged as a counter blast, in order to create defence. 5. On this final report, notice was issued to the complainant who entered appearance after service of notice, on 9.8.1999 and since than the matter was went on for hearing arguments on the question of cognizance. Some times the Court was busy in other works, while some time, the Presiding Officer was not available, and some times, adjournments were sought. However, it appears that on 1.9.1999, the arguments were heard and the case was fixed for orders on 13.9.1999. On that day, the order could not be passed and on 15.9.1999, the learned Magistrate posted the case for further arguments on 4.10.1999. Thereafter, it went on being adjourned for the aforesaid reasons. However, it appears that on 1.9.1999, the arguments were heard and the case was fixed for orders on 13.9.1999. On that day, the order could not be passed and on 15.9.1999, the learned Magistrate posted the case for further arguments on 4.10.1999. Thereafter, it went on being adjourned for the aforesaid reasons. It also appears from the order-sheet that since 17.6.2000 no Presiding Officer was available, as the post was lying vacant. It was on 20.11.2000 that the arguments were heard on cognizance and the matter was posted for orders on 27.11.2000, on which date, the cognizance was taken. In the order of cognizance, it is recited that protest petition was filed on 20.11.2000. Be that as it may. 6. This order of 27.11.2000, taking cognizance, did come to be challenged before this Court vide S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 48/2001 by the accused persons and that revision was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.2.2001, wherein it was observed that whatever submissions the petitioner want to make for the purpose of satisfying this Court, that there was no material on record on the basis of which cognizance could at all be taken, are very much open to the petitioners to be advanced before the learned Court below, in any case at the time of hearing arguments on the question of framing of the charge. With this, it was also directed that if such submissions are made, the learned Court considering the question of framing of the charge would obviously consider all those submissions on their own merits objectively and dispassionately. 7. It is in this sequence that after the case was committed, the learned Sessions Judge heard the learned counsel for the accused persons on the question of framing charge and has passed the impugned order. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the order is predominantly obsessed by the consideration of material of the cross case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 and the material collected by the Investigating Agency in that case has been substantially considered, rather has virtually been made the basis for passing the impugned order. 9. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the order is predominantly obsessed by the consideration of material of the cross case arising out of FIR No. 49/99 and the material collected by the Investigating Agency in that case has been substantially considered, rather has virtually been made the basis for passing the impugned order. 9. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor, contended that a look at the statements of Devilal, Kishore and Punaram, coupled with the injury report of Pukhraj and Sohanlal, does clearly establish that the accused persons did come to the house of Pukhraj and committed the incident as disclosed and.caused injuries. It is contended that the learned trial Court was clearly in error in taking into consideration the material of the cross case, for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether charges could be framed or not. 10. The learned counsel submitted that scrutiny of evidence as done by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned order is clearly contrary to the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court as given in the case of Omwati v. State through Delhi Administration, reported in 2001 Cr.L.R. (SC) 342 . Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Nathilal v. State of U.P., reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 139 . 11. The learned counsel for the accused persons on the other hand sup-ported the impugned order and submitted that a look at the site plan and site inspection note, does show that the investigating agency did not find any symptoms of incident having taken place, at the place, as alleged by the prosecution. A combined reading of the statement of Pukhraj and Sohanlal does show that Pukhraj has not deposed any injury to have been caused to Sohanlal and that the combined reading of statement of the eye-witnesses, so also of the victims, does show that there are material contradictions in their evidence, which renders the testimony unreliable. It is also contended that as a matter of fact, the present complainant party was the assailants and the incident had taken place at the house of Chhotulal, in which incident Shrawan Ram and Motiram had expired for which the complainant party are being prosecuted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. It is also contended that as a matter of fact, the present complainant party was the assailants and the incident had taken place at the house of Chhotulal, in which incident Shrawan Ram and Motiram had expired for which the complainant party are being prosecuted for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. Learned counsel thus contended that the learned trial Court was not at all in error in discharging the accused persons. 12. The learned counsel for the accused persons, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ram Singh v. State, reported in 1981 Cr.L.R. 143 and State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 . 13. I have gone through the record, the judgments cited by either side, and have considered the submissions. 14. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathilal's case, this can be assumed to be the settle position that, in cases, where there are cross cases, in deciding each case, the Court can rely only on evidence recorded in that particular case, the evidence recorded in-cross case cannot be looked into. Rather to use the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Nor can the Judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case, each case must be decided on the basis of evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case." 15. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the learned trial Court was clearly in error in passing the impugned order by taking into account the documents of the cross case as copies whereof had been filed in the present case, so also being influenced by them. 16. Coming to the merits of the present case, so far as the judgment in Rain Singh's case is concerned, in view of the subsequent judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal's case or Omwati's case, it cannot be said to be any more good law, when it holds that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge, "has the undoubted power to shift and weigh the evidence". The other proposition propounded therein, to the extent they are in line with the Supreme Court judgments, of course are all right. The other proposition propounded therein, to the extent they are in line with the Supreme Court judgments, of course are all right. Considering the material available on record, on the basis of the proposition propounded in Mohal Lal's case so also in Omwati's case, at this stage, this much is clear that there is a prima facie material on record to show that non-petitioner No. 1-Choturam S/o Ruparam is said to have caused injury to Sohanlal with a sharp-edged weapon and similarly there is evidence on record to show the accused-Shrawan Ram to have caused sharp-edged weapon injury to the victim Pukhraj. However, since shrawan Ram is said to be already dead, there are sufficient ground for proceeding against accused-Choturam S/o Rupa Ram, the non-petitioner No. 1. 17. So far as the other accused persons are concerned, no specific injury has been attributed to any of them by any of the witnesses including the injured, and whatever injury has been attributed by Sohanlal to another Choturam, is not even prima facie supported by the injury report and thus as that the present stage so far as other accused persons are concerned, it cannot be said that there is any sufficient ground for proceeding against them. 18. According the revision petitions are partly-allowed, the order so far as it discharges the non-petitioner No. 1-Chotulal S/o Ruparam, is concerned, it is quashed, and the learned Session Judge is directed to frame appropriate charge of whatever offence he find to be made out against him. The rest of the order is maintained. However, it is made clear that if during trial, any material comes on record against the other accused persons attracting the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. this order will not come in the way of the trial Court. 19. The non-petitioner No. 1-Choturam S/o Rupa Ram is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 14.9.2001.The record of the learned trial Court be returned forthwith.Bail application allowed. *******