JUDGMENT 1. - To challenge the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur, this petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. is preferred. By the order aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323/323 read with 34, 307/307 read with 34 IPC. 2. While assailing validity of framing the charge under Section 307 IPC, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that no evidence is available on record to opine that there is any ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed any act triable for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 3. The factual matrix, as emerges out from the police report and the documents annexed thereto, is that on 20.7.2007 a written report was submitted at Police Station Mandore stating therein that on 16.7.2007 when Chandra Singh was going for shopping, the petitioner alongwith Heeraram and Sunil demanded money from him for liquor and on denial they assaulted him. Subsequently when the informant visited to the house of the assailants to make complaint about their conduct, the assailants again attacked on Chandra Singh as a consequent thereto he received certain injuries. Prior to that the informant and the accused persons compromised their dispute, however, on 20.7.2007 the first information report was submitted. 4. From communication dated 6.8.2007 from the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine to Station House Officer, Police Station, Mandore, it reveals that Shri Chandra Singh received an abdominal injury as a result of blunt trauma. From the medical report it reveals that the spleen of Chandra Singh was enlarged. On basis of abdominal injury that resulted in spleen tear the charge for commission of an offence under Section 307 IPC was framed. 5. I have examined the police report alongwith all the documents. 6. The petitioner and other accused persons on 16.7.2007 itself at the first instance arrived at a compromise with injured and the first informant. The report was submitted subsequent thereto on 20.7.2007. From the evidence available on record there is nothing on basis of that it can be said that the petitioner was having any intention to commit an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The report was submitted subsequent thereto on 20.7.2007. From the evidence available on record there is nothing on basis of that it can be said that the petitioner was having any intention to commit an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It is also relevant to note that so far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation against him for giving any blow or hit to the injured at his abdomen. As a matter of fact on basis of available evidence no charge for the offence under Section 307 or 307/34 IPC could have been framed against the petitioner. 7. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that except the offence under Section 307 and 307/34 IPC all the offences are compoundable, therefore, the police at his own as per provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. could have compounded the matter. Looking to the fact that the charges have already been framed against the petitioner for the offences other than 307 and 307/34 IPC also, I do not consider it appropriate to examine this question. 8. In view of whatever discussed above, this revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 9.10.2007 is quashed to the extent it relates to framing of offence under Section 307 or in alternative 307/34 IPC.Revision allowed partly. *******