Judgment ( 1 ) BY the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24. 4. 2006 passed by special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta (for short trial court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 65/05, whereby the application filed by the petitioner complainant under section 216 Cr. P. C. was dismissed. ( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the jeep in which the petitioner was travelling was hit by jeep in which accused were travelling and therefore, the charge under section 307 read with Section 149 IPC for hitting by jeep ought to have been framed and therefore, the petitioner seeks amending the charge. ( 4 ) THE trial court on careful perusal of the record came to the conclusion that the allegation of firing pistol is against hanuman Ram, non-petitioner No. 2 for which the charge under section 307 IPC has been framed. Considering the evidence including the first information report lodged by witness ramswroop and the statements of Chain Singh, Nirmal Kumar and Inder Singh etc. who stated that when both the jeeps were plying parallel to each other, at that time, accused Hanuman ram fired a pistol. The matter is at the final stage. The trial court did not find any material to amend the charge. In my view, the order of the trial court does not suffer from any error, illegality or perversity. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.