JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 8.9.2011 and order dated 20.6.2011 whereby charges have been framed by Juvenile Board, Jodhpur Metropolitan against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 324, 302 and 149 I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that the complainant Dilip Mali filed a written report to the S.H.O, Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur stating therein that on 19.6.2010 in the night at about 12.30 A.M., the complainant along with Sunil Bhati, Abrar, Rahul, Deepak, Dilip Meghwal were coming after a dinner and they reached at B-Sector. There, three persons came there and altercation took place between these three persons and Sunil Bhati, who were Baldev, Kunal and Akshya. At the same time, 5-6 other persons, who are present petitioner and other, had also came there in a car and indulged in the quarrel. During the verbal altercation, Baldeo, Kunal and Akshya, took out a knife from their pocket and seeing the knife, Sunil Bhati ran away towards Shastri Circle, but the persons on motor cycle and car, have chased him and encircled him near Shyam Mugal Restaurant and there, Baldeo, Kunal and Akshya inflicted knife injuries to deceased. Sunil Bhati. After investigation, challan has been filed against the present petitioner and other accused-persons. The trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 149 and 302, I.P.C. The revision has been filed, which has also been dismissed by the revisional Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that quarrel had taken place all of sudden and the present petitioner did not know the complainant party. The present petitioner has not inflicted any injury. There was no pre-determination of mind for commission of offences. Hence, charges under Sections 149 and 302, I.P.C. should not be framed against the present petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is ample evidence to frame charges against the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 302 and 149, I.P.C. 6. There was no pre-determination of mind for commission of offences. Hence, charges under Sections 149 and 302, I.P.C. should not be framed against the present petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is ample evidence to frame charges against the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 302 and 149, I.P.C. 6. A bare reading of F.I.R. goes to show that initially the quarrel had taken place between the parties at Sector-B and there, it was not pre-planed, but F.I.R. and the statement of other witnesses goes to show that at Sector-B, Baldeo, Kunal and Akshya had tool out knife from their pocket and on seeing it, Sunil Bhati ran away towards Shastri Circle and the present petitioner and other persons chased him and encircled the deceased at Shyam Mugal Restaurant and there accused-persons inflicted injuries Hence, there was pre-determination of mind when they chased deceased Sunil Bhati. It is true that there is no allegation that the present petitioner had inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased.Section 149, I.P.C. reads as follows : "149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.-If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence." Looking at the above and facts of the present case, it is clear from the prosecution story that all the accused-persons along with present petitioner had chased the deceased and, thereafter, other accused persons had inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased, which goes to show that the present petitioner and others had predetermination of mind when they started chasing the deceased and the present petitioner, as a member of unlawful assembly, knew that the murder is likely to be committed of the deceased Sunil Bhati. There is no dispute about the legal position that when person is a part of unlawful assembly charge of even conviction can be made even if no overt act is attributed to him. 7. There is no dispute about the legal position that when person is a part of unlawful assembly charge of even conviction can be made even if no overt act is attributed to him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Anant Kumar and another v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1639 , where the accused was not having the knowledge about the fact that the other accused-persons armed with knives. But here the present petitioner was having the knowledge that other accused-persons are having knife and at Sector-B, accused-persons had took knife from their pocket. Hence, the above case does not help the present petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Mariadasan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1980 SC 573 , where sudden fight on spur of moment started. But here, first incident could be termed as sudden fight but when the present petitioner and other persons chased the deceased, there is prima facie case against the present petitioner that there was a pre-determination of mind for commission of offence. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment reported in State of U.P. v. Jashoda Nandan Gupta and others, AIR 1974 SC 753 , which deals with the principles of vicarious liability. There is no dispute about the legal proposition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also retied upon the judgment reported in the case of Baladin and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181 , wherein members of the family have assembled at a particular place and the Court held that mere presence in an assembly ipso facto cannot he treated as member of unlawful assembly. But here, as already said, the facts are quite different. 11. Masalti v. The State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 has also been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the facts of that case are quite different from the case in hand. 12. Hence, looking at the above factual legal position, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The revisional Court has considered the matter in its right perspective,) and there is no infirmity in the reasonings and conclusion arrived at by the Cow below. 13. Hence this misc. 12. Hence, looking at the above factual legal position, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The revisional Court has considered the matter in its right perspective,) and there is no infirmity in the reasonings and conclusion arrived at by the Cow below. 13. Hence this misc. petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******