JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-petitioner (1) Smt. Mohini, (2) Ram Chandra, (3) Hem Raj, (4) Miss Choti, (5) Shyam Lal @ Soma Ram, (6) Papu Ram @ Umeda Ram, and (7) Smt. Indra Have been charged in Sessions Case No. 164/2011 (State v. Ram Chandra etc. under Sections 307, 307/149, 326, 325, 427, 341, 147 and 323 I.P.C. read with Sections 149 I.P.C. and Section 148 I.P.C. etc. by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur on 6.4.2013. 2. It has been argued before me that Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur has not passed a speaking order that why he wants to charge the accused-petitioner. 3. The law has been settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000 Cri.L.J. 746(1) , that when police files a charge-sheet against some accused-persons under different sections of Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate agrees with tire conclusion of the charge-sheet, then he need not write a speaking order to frame the charge under those sections of Indian Penal Code. In Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan, 2008(1) CJ. (Raj.) Cri. 231 , this Court has also held that minor evaluation of the material and evidence is not required and the Court may conclude by considering the material that there is grave suspicion and prima facie case is made out against the accused. In the case in hand, copies of the charge-sheets has not been filed by the learned Advocate of the petitioners but with the Help of file of the learned Advocate of the petitioners, I have gone through the papers of the charge-sheet. In the case in hand, copies of the charge-sheets has not been filed by the learned Advocate of the petitioners but with the Help of file of the learned Advocate of the petitioners, I have gone through the papers of the charge-sheet. In F.I.R, it has been mentioned as under: " eksVj lkbZfdy lokj ';keyky us gekjh V~d ds lkeus eksVj lkbZfdy yk dj vpkud fxjk nh ftl ij geus V~d dks jksdk rks mDr lHkh tks V~d esa lokj Fks uhps mrjdj ges ?ksj fn;k o va/kk&/kqa/k xkM+h ij ykfB;ksa ls okj djus yxs o gsejkt ds ikl /kkfj;k Fkk tks mlus V~d dh QkVd ij okj fd;k xkM+h ds 'kh'ks rksM+ fn;s ykfB;k tks jkepUnz ds vykok vU; lHkh geykojksa ds ikl ykfB;k Fkh o jkepUnz ds ikl dqYgkM+h Fkh ykBh okyksa us ykfB;ksa ls gekjs V~d ds 'kh'ks rksM+ fn;s ,oa djhc gesa 10 gtkj :i;s dk uqdlku dkfjr fd;k fQj eSa o esjk HkkbZ lksukjke bu yksxksa ds Mj ds ekjs Hkkxus yxs rks bu yksxksa us ges pkjksa rjQ ls ?ksj fy;k o gsejkt us esjs HkkbZ lksukjke ds Mkos iSj ij ?kqVus ds uhps okj fd;k ftlls mldk iSj dV x;k vkSj pksV cgqr xaHkhj yxh ftlls mldh iSj dh gM~Mh Hkh dV xbZ o jkepUnz us dqYgkM+h dh lksukjke ds lhj ij lkeus okys fgLls ij tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls pksV ekjh ftllsa xaHkhj pksV vkbZ o [kwu cgus yx x;k o eSa fcp cpku djus yxk rks iIikjke us esjs the.ks iSj ij ykBh dh pksV ekjh o vU; yksxksa us esjs lkFk /kDdk /kqe fd;k o ';ke yky us eq>s idM+ fy;k o esjs Mkos iSj ds fxfj;s ds uhps ykBh dh iIikjke us ekjh o eksguh] bUnzk] dfork] eSuk us esjs HkkbZ lksukjke dks iM+s gq, dks ykfB;ksa ls va/kk&/kqU/k ekj ihV dh ftlls og xaHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks brus esa /kUukjke dks lkekpkj feyk rks fcykM+k ,Ecqysal 108 dks cqyk;k ftlesa Mkydj lksukjke dks tks/kiqj eFkqjk nkl ekFkqj vLirky esa HkrhZ djok;k gS mldh gkyr cgqr xaHkhj gS ,oa bu yksxksa us esjs HkkbZ lksukjke o esjs dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls iw.kZ rs;kjh djds vpkud geyk fd;kA esjs HkkbZ lksukjke dks izkFkfed mipkj dkijMk esa nsdj tks/kiqj Hkstk x;k o /kukjke o Hkkdjjke th Hkh ekSds ij vk x;s o vkl ikl ds dkQh yksx Hkh vk x;s Fks ftUgksaus ?kVuk dks ns[kkA eSa fjiksVZ djus vk x;k vkSj gekjs ?kj esa lHkh vkneh esjs HkkbZ dks ysdj tks/kiqj x;s gq, gksus ds dkj.k ihNs ls gekjs ?kj ij mDr yksxksa us va/kk&/kqa/k iRFkj Qsads o uksgjs dh fnokj fc[ksj nh ftldh lwpuk eq>s VsfyQksu esa esjs ?kj okyksa us nhA " 4. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. have been supported in the statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. of Bhanwar Lal, Bhakar Ram, Sona Ram, Madna Ram, Tulchha Ram, Dhanna Ram and Mangi Lal etc. I have also perused the MLR of Sona Ram. The Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 307, 307/149 I.P.C. along with charges under Sections 326, 325, 323 I.P.C. etc. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-petitioners that hey want to challenge charge of Sections 307 and 307/149 I.P.C. They have said nothing against charge under other sections of Indian Penal Code. Looking to the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, I am convinced that the lower Court has rightly framed charges under different sections of Indian Penal Code. In the following rulings it has been held that ordinarily Revisional Court should not interfere in the orders passed by the lower Court unless there is glaring illegality or it appears from the record that order passed by the Court below if allowed to subsist will defeat the ends of justice or it is without jurisdiction: (1) Amar Chand v. Shanti Bosch, AIR 1973 SC 799 . , (2) Kapatan Singh v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 2485 . , (3) Pathumma & Anr. v. Muhammad, AIR 1986 SC 1936 , (4) State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahti, 1979 AIR (SC) 663 , (5) Girija Nandnidevi Choudhary v. Vijendra Narayan Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 . 5. In the light of law propounded in he above rulings and in the circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to disturb the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur. Hence this revision petition deserves dismissal and which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur is hereby affirmed.The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the lower Court.Revision dismissed. *******