JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners Raj Kuamr Bohra and Ashok Kumar Bohra sons of late Shri Ratan Lal ji Bohra r/o Goraj Chowk, Nawa, Tehsil Nawa, District, Nagaur have filed this revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ( Fast Track) Parbatsar , District Nagaur dated 26.05.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case in nut shell are that both the petitioners are brothers and they are having a common shop Khadelwal Brothers situated at Nawa. The respondent accused Satish Sharma , Sitaram and Anil @ Annu are also residents of Nawa City. On 21.09.2008 a written complaint was lodged by Ashok Kumar in the Government Hospital Nawa City to the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, stating that all three respondents came to the shop of the petitioners and they had axe and 'lathis' in their hands. Respondent No.2 and 3 started to blow the 'lathis' and 'kulharis' on the petitioners, due to which they sustained injuries. On this report, a criminal case No.121/2008 was registered at police station Nawa City and after usual investigation a chargesheet was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Nawa, from where the case was committed to the court of learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, Parbatsar. The learned trial court, vide order dated 26.05.09 ordered to remit the case under section 228 Cr.P.C. while discharging the respondents from the offence under section 308/34IPC ordered the trial court to frame the charge under section 452, 341, 323, and 325/34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was an injury on the head of Raj Kumar and a fracture on the tibia bone on the left leg. Looking to the nature of the injuries and the weapon used by the respondents, the learned trial court should have framed charges under section 308 IPC and the learned trial court committed severe illegality and impropriety while remitting the case under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. M.K. Garg contended that the head injuries sustained by Rajkumar is simple in nature and there is only a fracture of the tibia bone and the learned trial Judge while passing the order dated 26.05.09 appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, which can be interfered by the revisional court. 5. Therefore, the order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety, which can be interfered by the revisional court. 5. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used, merely because the lower court has a wrong view of the law or misappropriated the evidence on record. 6. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice, with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case. 7. Interference in exercise of the powers under section 397, read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., is limited only to exceptional cases, when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, or where the trial court has illegally passed the order. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. 9. The injuries as sustained by Raj Kumar and Anil Kumar are not on vital part of the body and Raj Kumar sustained simple injuries on the head, therefore, in my view, the order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and it requires to be affirmed and is hereby affirmed. 10. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.Revision dismissed. *******