ORDER : 1. This revision is for impugning the order dated 11th January, 2008 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 353/2007, whereby the learned Judge has framed charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. On perusal of the FIR dated 3rd July, 2007 which has been lodged by injured Dharmendra Singh himself on the same day, it is alleged that at the time of incident one Dinesh Singh Tomar, admittedly the brother of the petitioner, has caused a gun shot injury at his right thigh with an intention to commit his murder. Neither any allegation is against the petitioner in the report nor has his name been mentioned in it. Next day on 4th July, 2007 when his statement under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code was recorded, he has added that after inflicting the aforementioned injury at his right thigh by Dinesh Singh Tomar, his elder brother/the petitioner came and uttered ^^cksyk fd yxs lkys esa cp ugha ik;sA** Upon this, Dinesh Singh Tomar reloaded his Katta (country-made firearm) but on account of his cries, witness Guddu @ Jagdish came at the place of incident and both the brothers ran away. 3. It appears that the injury concerned on which the charge has been framed had been inflicted prior to arrival of the petitioner at the place of incident. It does not appear that the injury concerned has been caused on the exhortation of the petitioner. It also appears that after arrival of the petitioner, he uttered aforementioned words of exhortation and thereupon, the co-accused reloaded his Katta but he could not fire on account of arrival of a witness. The material fact is, that in the FIR nothing has been mentioned against the petitioner. In these circumstances, framing of the charge against the petitioner for the aforementioned offence does not appear justified. The learned Judge has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in judicious manner. The approach of the learned Judge is erroneous. 4. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside so far as it relates to the petitioner.