JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 12/2012 whereby the charges have been framed against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 443, 353, 336 and 307, Indian Penal Code. 2. During course of arguments, the contention of the present petitioners is that they are only aggrieved with the charge for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code The contention of the present petitioner is that the order is unsustainable in the eye of law. No grievous injury has been suffered by any of the injured persons. There is no allegation that any deadly weapon has been used by the present petitioner. No injury is on any vital part of the body and even no intention of attempt of murder has been attributed to the present petitioner. The alleged beating has been done by the fist, blows and sticks and stones have been thrown. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. The F.I.R. goes to show that the incident has been occurred when the police party has reached to spot in relation to the investigation of the case. It has been alleged that the present petitioners have assaulted the police party with stones and fist blows and lathis. None of the injured person has received any grievous injury and all the injuries are on non-vital parts of the body. 5. Hence looking at the nature of the injuries, manner of incident and weapons used, it cannot be inferred that the intention of the present petitioners was to commit murder of the injured persons and the learned Court below has not considered the evidence in right perspective. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2012(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 535 , wherein it has been held as under: "8. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, whilst considering the question of framing charges against the accused, by virtue of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code, is not an empty formality. The jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, whilst considering the question of framing charges against the accused, by virtue of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code, is not an empty formality. If the opinion of the Investigating Officer is the final yard-stick for framing the charges then there was no reasons for the Legislature to have enacted the provisions of Sections 227 and 228, Criminal Procedure Code The learned trial Judge, before proceeding to frame charges, has to form an opinion with his own wisdom that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence and thereafter only, the charges can be framed. Such an opinion has to be arrived at by the trial Judge after hearing the accused and the prosecution and after considering the papers submitted along with the charge-sheet. He cannot simply follow the conclusion of the Investigating Officer for framing charges against the accused." In the light of above, looking at the facts of the present case, the impugned order of framing charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.In view of the above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order of framing charge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed.Revision partly allowed. *******