JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Sikar in Sessions Case No. 22/2001, whereby he discharged the accused respondent for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.9.1998, the petitioner lodged a report with regard to an incident, that had taken place on the same day. On the basis of said report, the police registered F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 452, 307 and 323 I.P.C. The investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the Court/Magistrate concerned, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge, transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar camp Sri Madhopur for trial. After committal of the case, the Trial Court heard the arguments for framing the charge and vide order dated 5.6.2002 discharged fie accused respondent for the alleged charges. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. 3. I have learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Court below. 4. Hence, this revision petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner. 3. I have learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Court below. 4. I am in agreement with the observations made by the Court below in its order dated 5.6.2002, the relevant part whereof is reproduced as under: " vr% vkjksfir vijk/khx.k Hkhokajke o eq0 izHkkrh ds fo:) D;k vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tkos] bl ij U;k;ky; dks fopkj.k djuk gSA ?kVuk ds lk{kh eqLrxhl xksiky flag o mldk iq= x.ks'kjke us Hkhokajke o vkse izdk'k dks ?kVukLFky ij ns[kus o vkseizdk'k dk dsoy ykBh fy;s gqvk [kM+k gksuk cryk;k gS ftl vkseizdk'k dks iqfyl us vfHk;qDr ugha cuk;k gSA xokg x.ks'kjke] izHkkrh }kjk ykBh ls ekjihV djus dh ckr dgrk gS ijUrq eqLrxhl xksiky flag iqfyl c;ku esa izHkkrh dk dksbZ d`R; ugha cryk;k gSA pksVxzLr lkaoj flag Hkh vius iqfyl c;ku esa izHkkrh dk uke gh ugha ysrk gS rFkk eq0 izHkkrh dks ekjihV esa lfEefyr ugha gksuk cryk;k gSA dsoy Hkhokajke o vkse izdk'k }kjk ekjihV ykBh ls fd;k tkuk crkrk gSA vr% tc pksVxzLr lkaojflag ( lkaojey ) iq= NksVwjke o eqLrxhl xksiky flag nksuksa gh izHkkrh dks ?kVukLFky ij ?kVuk esa fyIr ugha gksus dk rF; crykrs gSa ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrk Jherh izHkkrh ds fo:) /kkjk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vkjksi fojfpr djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA iqfyl us bl izdj.k esa cM+k ypj vuqla/kku fd;k gS rFkk xokgku ds /kkjk 161 n0iz0la0 ds c;ku fojks/kkHkklh vfHk;qDrx.k ds fcUnq ij o muds ikl ik;s x;s gfFk;kjksa ds fcUnw ij vafdr fd;s gSa] ,slh fLFkfr esa izFke n`"V;k vfHk;qDr Hkhokajke ds fo:) /kkjk 452] 323] 325 rFkk 307 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds vkjksi cuus ls mlds fo:) vkjksi fojfpr djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDrk Jherh izHkkrh ds fo:) izFke n`"V;k vkjksi ugha cuus ls mls vkjksfir vijk/k ls nks"k mUeksfpr djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA mlds tekur eqpyds fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA " 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to interfere in the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Court below and accordingly, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner being bereft of any substance, is hereby dismissed after confirming the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Court below.Revision dismissed. *******