Judgment :- The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-The defacto complainant, viz., Kullappa Gounder had lodged a complaint before the respondent-police against the accused, viz., Pechimuthu, stating that the accused had prevented him from cultivating his land and had also threatened the employees, who are working in the agricultural field. Therefore, he has sought police protection on 19.02.1996. Thereafter, on 24.02.1996, the accused Pechimuthu and his parents prevented the agricultural labourers from proceeding to their work. In spite of this, the workers had continued to do their work. At this point of time, the accused Pechimuthu took a gun and fired in the air. Immediately, all the labourer were frightened and came out of the agricultural field. The said complaint was taken on file by the Inspector of Police, who is attached to the Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore and a criminal complaint was registered in Crime No.58 of 1996 for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. 2. After filing charge sheet, the criminal case was posted for framing of charges in S.C.No.106 of 2004, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Coimbatore at Tirupur. At this juncture, the accused has filed Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2004 in S.C.No.106 of 2004, to discharge him from the said criminal case. The respondent-police had filed objections and resisted the discharge petition. 3. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on considering the averments of both the parties, the said discharge petition was dismissed by the learned judge, since it was observed that there was a prima-facie case as per 161 statements given by the prosecution witnesses. Subsequently, charges were framed against the petitioner/Pechimuthu under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1B)(A) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. 4. Against the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV in framing charges in S.C.No.106 of 2004, the revision has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the learned Judge framed the charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 25(1B)(A) of Indian Arms Act, 1959, which is not maintainable as per the ingredients of the F.I.R, since there is no prima-facie case. The learned competent counsel further contended that the petitioner has no intention or pre-plan or preparation to kill the defacto complainant and his employees. The learned competent counsel further contended that the petitioner has no intention or pre-plan or preparation to kill the defacto complainant and his employees. As such, the fire opened in the air cannot be taken as an offence under Section 307 of IPC. i.e., threatening to murder. This kind of trivial issue is covered only under Section 506(ii) of IPC. and it has to be tried by the Judicial Magistrate instead of Sessions Court. Further, the petitioner is a law abiding person and an ex-serviceman who was attached to the Indian Air Force and now working at LIC Office at Sulur. The petitioner is leading his life along with his wife and minor daughter. Further, there is a civil suit filed by the defacto complainant against the father of the revision petitioner and the same was dismissed after full fledged trial. After that the defacto complainant had attempted to grab the petitioners property but that was in vain. Hence, the false complaint had been foisted against him before the respondent-police. It clearly proves that there is a civil dispute between both the parties. Therefore, the prosecution case is not a bona-fide one. 6. The very competent counsel for the State claimed that the charge had been filed against the petitioner under 307 IPC and 25(1B)(A) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. Due to civil dispute, the accused, in order to wreck vengeance attempted to kill the defacto complainant and opened fire. The accused possessed a powerful gun and if it is fired against any person, it would cause instantaneous death. Further, after due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed in the year 1999. Thereafter, after lapse of four years, the discharge petition has been filed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further stated that the gun licence has been given to the accused with terms and conditions, but he had used the gun without following the terms and conditions and as such, he had violated the conditions laid for issuance of gun licence. The highly competent counsel further contended that in order to prove the prosecution case, 11 witnesses had been listed and 161 statements had been given by some of the listed witnesses and material evidence had also been produced before the trial Court. Now, the case is ready for trial and the prosecution is prepared to prove the case against the accused. 7. Now, the case is ready for trial and the prosecution is prepared to prove the case against the accused. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that as per the F.I.R, the defacto complainant stated that his employees, who were working in the agricultural field were threatened by the accused. Therefore, the employees who are aggrieved persons should have lodged the complaint, whereas in the instant case, it has not been done. Further, as per the prosecution case, all the employees were not examined except two witnesses who are not reliable witnesses. As per the statement of one of the witness, viz., Kandasami, six persons had run away from the agricultural field, but they have not been listed as witnesses in the instant case. As such, there is infirmities in the prosecution case. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to allow the above revision. 8. On Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the framing of charges against the revision petitioner herein, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at for framing the said charges. The revision petitioner being an ex-serviceman should have exercised restraint before opening fire. This act of his cannot be taken as a trivial issue as has been made out considering that the labourers who had worked in the filed had run away from the spot and this clearly amounts to intimidation. Further, the defacto complainant and three of his employees who are listed as prosecution witnesses and who are also eyewitnesses in the said criminal case, had given statements on the same line that the accused had threatened them and opened fire. Therefore, a trial is absolutely necessary in order to decide the issue. However, the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and is presently working in LIC as full time employee and therefore, his presence is dispensed with. However, he has to appear before the trial Court, as and whenever required by the learned Judge, if it is decided that his presence is absolutely necessary. Further, this Court directs the learned Judge to dispose the sessions case on the topmost priority basis without being influenced by this Court's discussions. 9. In the result, the above revision is dismissed with the above observations. Further, this Court directs the learned Judge to dispose the sessions case on the topmost priority basis without being influenced by this Court's discussions. 9. In the result, the above revision is dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, the order passed regarding framing of charges inS.C.No.106 of 2004, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, dated 31.05.2005 is confirmed.