JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 1, Baghpat in S.T. No. 201 of 2003 (State v. Ramveer and others), Police Station Chandinagar, District Baghpat. 2. The brief facts of this case are that a N.C.R. No. 3 of 2003 under Section 323/506 I.P.C. was written at P.S. Chandinagar, District Baghpat. The complainant of the said case is one Anil Kumar. According to the report, on 26.1.2003 at about 5.00 P.M. in village Laliyana, P.S. Chandinagar, District Baghpat, an altercation had taken place between the complainant-revisionist and opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. Thereafter all the accused persons named in the N.C.R. assaulted the revisionist causing him injuries. The injured was rushed to the hospital where he was medically examined and the Medical Officer, who examined his injuries, found following injuries on his person : (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.1 cm x bone deep on left side head obliquely placed 5 cm above medial end of the eyebrow. Fresh bleeding present. (ii) Bruise 10 cm x 3 cm on right side back of chest 2 cm above upper border of right scapula. Red in colour. (iii) Bruise 3 cm x 2 cm front of left shoulder. Red in colour. (iv) Bruise 5 cm x 1.5 cm on left side lower back 2 cm above iliac crest. Red in colour. (v) Pain over abdomen. The Medical Officer kept injury No. 1 under observation. Rest of the injuries were simple in his opinion. According to him injuries were fresh in duration. Injury No. 1 was referred for x-ray. The injured was X-rayed on 27.1.2003 and according to the Radiologist , there was a fracture of orbital wall of left side of scull. Thereafter a supplementary medical report was prepared on 29.1.2003 and injury No. 1 was found to be grievous in nature. 3. After the investigation of the case, the I.O. prepared a charge-sheet under Sections 323/324/325/506 I.P.C. When the matter was examined by the Supervisory Authority i.e. the Circle Officer of the circle concerned, it was found that the matter was one where an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was also disclosed. 3. After the investigation of the case, the I.O. prepared a charge-sheet under Sections 323/324/325/506 I.P.C. When the matter was examined by the Supervisory Authority i.e. the Circle Officer of the circle concerned, it was found that the matter was one where an offence under Section 308 I.P.C. was also disclosed. The C.O. of the police directed the I.O. of the case to record the statement of the Medical Officer concerned whereupon the I.O. examined the Medical Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter Section 308 I.P.C. was added to the charge-sheet and the same was filed in the Court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and after furnishing the copies of the police papers to the accused persons, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused-private opposite parties appeared before the Court of Sessions. 4. In this case, copy of order-sheet has been filed which is Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed alongwith memo of revision. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18.7.2003, clearly indicates that on that date all the private opposite parties had appeared in his Court and after hearing both the parties, charges under Sections 308/34/506 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. Thereafter the witnesses were summoned. On 22.1.2004 an application was moved before the learned Sessions Jude with a prayer that in the charges framed against the accused persons on 18.7.2003, date and time of the incident has been wrongly mentioned and it was requested that they may be corrected. The learned Sessions Judge on the same day corrected it. Thereafter on the same day, he transferred the case to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge. 5. The records show that the private opposite parties moved Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2004 before this Court on 18.3.2004 and on the next date i.e. on 19.3.2004 the following order was passed. “Hon’ble M.P. Singh, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the matter on record. The revisionists have come up in revision against framing of charges under Section 308 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under Section 323, 324, 325 and 506/34 I.P.C. The charge-sheet was submitted under these Sections. “Hon’ble M.P. Singh, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the matter on record. The revisionists have come up in revision against framing of charges under Section 308 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that initially an F.I.R. was lodged under Section 323, 324, 325 and 506/34 I.P.C. The charge-sheet was submitted under these Sections. The revisionist was committed to the Court of sessions under Section 308 I.P.C. and charges have been framed against him under these Sections. The learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he was not heard at this stage of framing of charge and he may given an opportunity of being heard. The revision is disposed of with the direction that the revisionist shall be afforded opportunity to file objection before the Court of session which shall be disposed of in accordance with law and thereafter shall proceed to record the evidence in this case. Dated 19.3.2004 Sd/- ......................” 6. The fact shows that this order was obtained by the private opposite parties by keeping the Court in dark and not producing before it the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 18.7.2003 in which it was clearly mentioned that charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 308/34/506 I.P.C. after hearing them and the prosecution in detail. It is worth mentioning here that Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 2004 was presented before this Court on 18.3.2004 and the order was passed on 19.3.2004 i.e. on the next day which indicates that when this order was passed, the revisionist was not there to bring to the knowledge of the Court certain relevant facts. Any way I have to take that order as it stands today. 7. The order dated 19.3.2004 was produced before the learned lower Court by the accused side. By that time the said session trial was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1. Since this Court had directed the learned lower Court to frame the charges afresh after hearing both the parties, this occasion was utilized by the accused persons of that case to argue before the learned lower Court that no case under Section 308 I.P.C. was made out. Since this Court had directed the learned lower Court to frame the charges afresh after hearing both the parties, this occasion was utilized by the accused persons of that case to argue before the learned lower Court that no case under Section 308 I.P.C. was made out. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 1 passed an order in five long pages holding that no case under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out and it was a case under Section 323/324/325/506 I.P.C. only which Sections are triable by the Court of a Magistrate and, therefore, he sent back the said case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate with the direction that it will proceed there. Feeling aggrieved by this order dated 13.10.2004 the present revision has been filed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the perusal of the order impugned herein it is evident that the learned lower Court had examined the entire matter in a highly detailed manner. It is not permitted in law. The learned lower Court had examined the statements of the witnesses as recorded by the I.O. of the case under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and scrutinized the same as if those statements have been recorded by a Court under Section 231 Cr.P.C. and both, the prosecution and the accused, had an opportunity to examine the said witnesses after their examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Such type of orders are not required to be passed at the stage of Section 228 Cr.P.C. 9. Puttu v. State of U.P., 1995 L.Cr.R. 83, has been filed from the side of private opposite parties but the law as laid down in this case law by this Court has absolutely no application keeping in view the dispute involved in the case in hand. 10. In Muzammil Jamal and others v. State of U.P., 1999 (38) ACC 697, this Court has said that at the stage of framing of charges the Court is not required to enter into the meticulous examination of the statements of the witnesses as recorded in the case diary and other materials. It is also not required that at this stage a detailed reasoning should be given while framing of charge. 11. It is also not required that at this stage a detailed reasoning should be given while framing of charge. 11. In Vibhuti Narayan Chaubey @ Lala Chaubey and others v. State of U.P., 2002 (45) ACC 745, this Court has held that charges once framed cannot be deleted. Only clarical mistakes can be rectified but it is not permitted that the entire charges should be re-cast. 12. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Lal Pradhan and others, 1988 (25) ACC 158 (SC), the Apex Court has said that when a charge has been framed by a judge, it is not open for his successor in office to discharge the accused persons. The ratio given in this case law clearly indicates that once charges have been framed in a case, they are not to be disturbed by the same Court. 13. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, 1995 (Supp.) ACC 640, the Apex Court has said that if on the basis of materials on record, the Court could come to the conclusion that “the commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists”. “To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. Therefore, it is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” 14. In State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and others, 2000 Crl. L.J. 944 the Apex Court has said that to quash a charge detailed appreciation of the materials produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of charge is not justified. At the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not required to marshal the materials on record but only has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient materials against accused? 15. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and others, 2001 (42) ACC 39, the Apex Court has specifically stated that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record. 15. In State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and others, 2001 (42) ACC 39, the Apex Court has specifically stated that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not expected to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record. At this stage the Court should not consider the sufficiency of materials but should confined itself by examining the materials only with a view of a prima facie case of commission of offence. 16. In the instant case examination in chief of two witnesses have also been recorded under Section 231 Cr.P.C. From the examination of the witnesses as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the Medical Officer as contained in the case diary and the injury report, it is evident that prima facie a case under Section 308 I.P.C. is clearly made out. Injury No. 1 as described in the injury report, the X-ray report and the supplementary medical report clearly indicate that orbital wall of the scull of the injured Anil was fractured. This by itself indicates the gravity of injury No. 1. The Medical Officer has clearly mentioned that the said injury is grievous in nature. The learned lower Court has unnecessarily discussed the entire medical jurisprudence while considering the injuries of the injured at the stage of framing of charges. 17. In the backdrop of the factual position discussed above and the question of law as involved in the case, I am of the view that the legal position is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against the accused persons. At the stage of charge, the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been made out against the accused persons. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial Court has framed a charge against an accused, that should not be disturbed except for the purpose of correcting typing mistakes or correction of date, time etc. of the case. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial Court has framed a charge against an accused, that should not be disturbed except for the purpose of correcting typing mistakes or correction of date, time etc. of the case. In the garb of such correction no charge can be altered to a lower Section nor a charge can be deleted. However, it is always open to the trial Court to frame charges in higher Sections of the Penal Act concerned if it appears that a charge for graver Section could not be framed. 18. On the basis of the above discussion, I am of the view that the revision has got force and it should be allowed. The order impugned herein is totally illegal, perverse and immature and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the revision is allowed. The order impugned dated 13.10.2004 is quashed and set aside. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. 19. The matter is sent back to the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial immediately on the basis of the charges framed by him on 18.7.2003 with the correction done on 22.1.2004. It is further directed that opposite party No. 2, Ramveer, opposite party No. 3 Kuldeep, opposite party No. 4 Dharmveer and opposite party No. 5 Saggu shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat on 10.1.2011. The learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to issue necessary coercive processes in accordance with law to compel and secure the attendance of the accused-opposite parties before him. Let a copy of this order be sent immediately by FAX also to the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat. He is further directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible preferably within a period of four months from the date he receives a copy of this order. —————