JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- Complainant-petitioner had filed a complaint under Sections 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 355, 323, 166, 167, 194, 506, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). The respondents were discharged vide the impugned order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jind Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind. Hence, the present revision petition. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “A Criminal complaint under Sections 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 355, 323, 166, 167, 194, 506, 120-B and 34 IPC was filed by the complainant Birbal Singh against accused Ram Mehar Sub Inspector, Police Station, Sadar Jind and Inspector Chander Bhan, Incharge CIA staff, Jind. After receiving preliminary evidence from the complainant, hearing was provided to the counsel for the complainant and vide order dated 28.11.2003, finding no merit therein, the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved with the said order the complainant had filed a Revision Petition which was decided by the revisional Court on 26.7.2004. Order of dismissal of the complaint was set aside. The Revisional Court accepting the revision petition had ordered summoning of both the accused for commission of the offence under Section 323, 342 and 343 IPC. Record was sent back to the trial Court for proceeding further in the matter as per law. The accused on appearance was released on bail. Pre-charge evidence was led by the complainant. The accused through their counsel had participated in the proceedings. Providing a hearing to the counsel for the parties while appreciating evidence in the interface of factual matrix of the case, the learned lower court had come to a conclusion that no case for framing charge against the accused was made out; consequently the accused were discharged.” 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. SI Ram Mehar-respondent No.1 was posted in Police Station Sadar Jind, whereas, respondent No.2 Chander Bhan was incharge of CIA staff, Jind. Subhash, brother of the complainant, was in custody in FIR No.77 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Jind. 4. SI Ram Mehar-respondent No.1 was posted in Police Station Sadar Jind, whereas, respondent No.2 Chander Bhan was incharge of CIA staff, Jind. Subhash, brother of the complainant, was in custody in FIR No.77 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Jind. After investigation, Subhash was discharged as there was no material available against him. The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus bearing No. 364 of 2001. When the Warrant Officer visited the CIA staff, Subhash was found sitting in a room in view of registration of FIR No. 77 of 2001. Hence, the Warrant Officer gave the report that Subhash had been sent to CIA staff for further interrogation. Thus, it cannot be said that Subhash had been kept in illegal custody by the CIA staff. Moreover, there was no supportive medical evidence with regard to alleged torture of Subhash by the respondents. The criminal complaint was filed on 30.4.2001, whereas, the occurrence had taken place in the night intervening 9- 10/4.2001. The said delay had not been duly explained. Since the respondents were acting in discharge of their official duties as an FIR had been registered against Subhash and he was in custody in the said case for interrogation, the Courts below rightly held that the respondents were entitled for protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The accused had thus been rightly discharged by the trial Court and the order of the trial Court had been rightly upheld by the appellate Court. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. --------------------------