JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the complainant Chhotu, against the order dated October 11, 2002, of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Tonk whereby accused petitioners Prabhu Narain, Ramawtar and Ramphool were discharged for the offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code and charges were framed against them under sections 341, 323 read with section 34 and 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a parcha bayan of complainant petitioner on May 5, 2002 at 7.00 p.m. an FIR was registerered at Police Station Baroni regarding an incident allegedly taken place that day at 3.00 p.m. against the accused non-petitioners. On receipt of the said report, FIR No.113 of 2002 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 447, 323, and 149 Indian Penal Code was registered. After investigation police filed challan under sections 341, 323, 325 and 308 Indian Penal Code. Pre-charge arguments were heard by the trial court and accused petitioners were charged for the offence under sections 341, 323 read with section 34 and 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and discharged for the offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code by the order dated October 11, 2002. Against this order instant revision petition has been filed. 3. Mr. B.B.Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant petitioner contended that the trial court committed grave illegality in appreciating evidence. Initially the case was registered for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 3423 and 149 Indian Penal Code and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed for the offences under sections 341, 323, 325 and 308 Indian Penal Code. There is material against the accused non-petitioners for offence under sections 308 Indian Penal Code, but the trial court discharged the non-petitioners of the said offence. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents Mr.V.P. Bishnoi and Mr. R.S.Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and argued that the Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly discharged the accused non-petitioners for the offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code and rightly framed charge against them under sections 341,323 read with section 34 and section 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. The order of the Addl. Sessions Judge is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 5. The order of the Addl. Sessions Judge is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that cross cases have been registered between the parties. The trial court after scrutiny of the material on record particularly the injury reports framed the charge against the non-petitioners for the offence under sections 341, 323 read with section 34 and section 325 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code and rightly discharged the accused non-petitioners for the offence under section 308 Indian Penal Code. The order of the Addl. Sessions Judge in this manner cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 6. For these reasons the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. The record of the case may be sent back forthwith. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. Since the main case has been disposed, the stay application also stands disposed of.Revision Dismissed *******