Judgment HARBANS LAL, J. ( 1 ) THE instant criminal revision under Section 397 nw 401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 21/11/2002 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror in Sessions Case No. 16/2002 whereby charges for the offences u/ss 307, 325, 447 and 323 IPC have been framed against the petitioner and other accused persons. ( 2 ) SUCCINCTLY stated the relevant facts are that one Om Prakash made a written report at police station Shahjahanpur on 13/7/2000 to the effect that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons came in a tractor on their field to demolish the boundary mound. Kabul Singh, Balvant Singh and Mangtu Ram tried to make them understand that the bound mound was theirs. They started beating them as a result of which they sustained several injuries including grievous injuries. On the basis of the written report, an FIR being FIR No. 125/2000 was registered initially for the offences u/ss. 447, 323, 307 IPC and after necessary investigation chargesheet was filed. On the case being committed for trial, the learned court below after hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record framed charges as indicated above and fixed the case for entire prosecution evidence on 6/2/2003, 7/2/2003, 10/2/2003 and 11/2/2003. The said order is under challenge in this revision. ( 3 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the medical board who subsequently examined the injured Balvant, opined that though injury No. 1 is grievous, it is not dangerous to life and cannot cause death in the ordinary course of nature, So no offence u/s 307 IPC can be said to be made out even primafade. He has, therefore, urged that the petitioner may be discharged from the offence u/s 307 IPC but no serious challenge has been made to the other charges. ( 4 ) LEARNED P. P. has on the other hand supported the order of the learned court below and has submitted that at this stage the court cannot go into detailed discussion and appreciation of evidence on record. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that there is no basis for framing the charge u/s 307 IPC. ( 4 ) LEARNED P. P. has on the other hand supported the order of the learned court below and has submitted that at this stage the court cannot go into detailed discussion and appreciation of evidence on record. From the materials on record, it cannot be said that there is no basis for framing the charge u/s 307 IPC. According to him nature and site of injuries are no doubt relevant to judge the intention of the assailant, but there may be other circumstances which may indicate that the intention of the assailant was to cause the death of the victim. He has also drawn my attention to the fact that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the boundary mound and it was in this background that the accused persons had come on the field duly armed to demolish the same. On being resisted from doing so, they assaulted the injured persons and caused them numerous injuries. The medical officer who initially examined injured Balvant opined that his injury No. 1 was grievous and dangerous to life. But subsequently the medical board substituted to reexamine his injuries has no doubt opined that his injury No. 1 is grievous in nature but the same is not dangerous to life and cannot cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has, therefore, urged that it cannot be said that there is no material on record to frame the charges as framed by the court below. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the available materials and have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. ( 6 ) IT may not be just, reasonable and appropriate to make any observation on the merits of the case at this stage because it may prejudice the case of either side at the trial, but it would suffice to say that it cannot be said that there is absolutely no basis for framing the charge u/s 307 IPC against the petitioner and other coaccused persons looking to the preexisting dispute and enmity between the parties and also the fact that the accused persons have given serious beatings to all those who tried to intervene. It cannot be conclusively inferred in the face of the materials on record that the intention of the petitioner was not to cause the death of the victim or the accused did not know that the death of victim would be caused in the assault made by them on their victims. In the case of Ajay Kumar and others v. State, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden outside a cinema over drinking water. So the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the instant case where the accused appear to have gone to the place of occurrence duly armed and there was preexisting dispute between them regarding the boundary mound. ( 7 ) THIS apart the Honble Apex Court has in the case of Smt. Omwati and Anr. v. State through Dethi Administration 2 has observed as under: We would again remind the High Court of their statutory obligation not to interfere at the stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused persons. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled for and unjustified litigations under the cloak of technicalities of law. ( 8 ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid guidelines laid down by the Honble Apex Court for the High Courts in dealing with the cases pertaining to framing of charges and the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the impugned order is illegal or improper or suffers from any other infirmity. ( 9 ) IN this view of the matter, therefore, this revision petition having no merit and substance deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.