JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - Vide this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of order dated 17.9.2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat framing charges against them under Sections 323, 324, 325, 34 and 506 IPC and the order dated 19.5.2011 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, has dismissed the revision petition against the said order, the same being arbitrary and unlawful. 2. Challenging the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the evidence in the case goes to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused side, was aggressor and the minor injuries found on the two persons of the accused party are self inflicted. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the accused party was undoubtedly the aggressor party then submission of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C and framing of charges against the petitioners was an abuse of process of law and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed to that extent. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. As per the averments made in FIR No.123 dated 10.5.2010, Police Station Rai, District Sonepat registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 506 IPC on the statement of one Raj Kumar son of Bhagat Singh, on 9.5.2010, when the complainant along with his family members was working in their sugarcane field at about 6 P.M, his brother Ram Phool, Virender Son of Bhagat Singh, Raj Bala wife of Ram Phool, Rajwanti wife of Virender , Inderjit and Monu sons of Ram Phool inflicted injuries with axes, Gandasi and lathis on the pretext that the complainant had cut their plastic pipe installed by them for pilferaging the canal water. The complainant was rescued by his wife Sunita and daughters Nitu and Ritu from the clutches of the accused persons who also gave injuries to his wife Sunita and daughters. Thereafter, they raised cries for rescue and on hearing their din, many people from the vicinity gathered and on seeing them, the accused persons fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. It is the further case of the petitioners that the accused persons inflicted minor injuries on their person and got admitted themselves in order to save them from the police action and law. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the accused persons inflicted minor injuries on their person and got admitted themselves in order to save them from the police action and law. 5. On the statement of petitioner No.1, FIR No.123 dated 10.5.2010 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324/506 IPC was registered at Police Station Rai, Distt Sonepat and later on Section 326 was also added after obtaining the report of the doctor in respect of nature of injury No.1 on his person. According to the petitioners, the accused persons, who are very influential, have won the local police and investigation in the FIR was badly affected and resultantly, the local police without recording any statement against the petitioners, filed further report under Section 173 Cr.P.C implicating them falsely under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 IPC. Sensing this, petitioner No.1 filed an application dated 15.5.2010 to respondent No.4 directing the local police to conduct free and fair investigation. However, the local police for the reasons best known to it have not arrested the accused persons, despite the fact that they are duly named in the FIR and special role has been attributed to them. The petitioners, thereafter, moved an application dated 19.5.2010 to respondent No.3- the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range Rohtak for applying his influence in getting the free, fair and independent investigation but nothing could be done. According to the petitioners, they have remained hospitalized in PGIMS, Rohtak for several days because of injuries inflicted on vital parts by the accused persons. The petitioners have also relied upon the report of the MLR conducted upon them. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 and 34 IPC against the petitioners vide order dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure P-4). The petitioners filed revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 19.5.2011. 6. A perusal of the averments made in this petition would show that admittedly the alleged accused party i.e. Ram Phool etc. had also received injuries though the same are alleged to be self inflicted according to the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that on the version of the petitioners, FIR has also been recorded against the alleged accused Ram Phool etc. 7. had also received injuries though the same are alleged to be self inflicted according to the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that on the version of the petitioners, FIR has also been recorded against the alleged accused Ram Phool etc. 7. It is well settled that at the time of framing charges, the Court is to frame charges on the basis of the documents attached with the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C and for framing the charges, no material/evidence beyond the said documents can be looked into. 8. The argument raised before this Court regarding veracity of the allegations levelled by the parties against each other cannot be determined at the time of framing of charges on the basis of the material/evidence as submitted before this Court, which is yet to be recorded during the trial. 9. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for quashing of the impugned orders. Dismissed. ----------------