JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 402 Cr.RC. to assail the order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 13/2004 (106/2001) (90/99), whereby an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the present petitioner was summoned to stand trial for the offences under Sections 148, 147, 325, 307 and 302/149 IPC. 2. The present revision petition was filed in August, 2004. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 26.8.2004 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Application No. 284/2004 had stayed the operation of the impugned order till further orders. During the pendency of the revision petition, the i trial proceeded against remaining co-accused. The trial court on 18.8.2007 convicted and sentenced ten co-accused of the petitioner, namely Hanuman Sahai, Jagannath @ Boduram, Kailash Chand @ Dabliya, Harphooi, Kalla @ Kalyan Sahai, Mahesh Kumar, Badri Prasad, Shrawan Kumar, Jai Narayan and Ganpat. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the co-accused of the petitioner had filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2007. 3. The present revision petition on 29.3.2011 by the co-ordinate Bench, was ordered to be listed along with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2007. Vide a separate judgment of even date, we have decided D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2007. in the said appeal, we have noted that criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by Anil (P.W. 1) before S.I. Ashok Kumar (P.W. 31), who on 19.5.1999 was posted as SHO, Police Station Govindgarh. In our judgment dated 7.1.2016, we have noted that in the initial FIR, only allegation against the petitioner Tejpal is that his family was earlier in possession of the land. In our judgment dated 7.1.2016, passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2007, so far as written report (Exhibit-P/1) is concerned, we have noted as under: "14. A perusal of above written report, highlight following facts : (i) The complainant had gone to cultivate the land on 19.5.1999 at 10:00 A.M. (ii) The said land was earlier in possession of family of Tejpal, however, the written report is totally silent as to when the possession from the family of Tejpal came to the complainant party, when and how the family of Tejpal was dispossessed. (iii) In the written report, it is stated that on the disputed land Tejpal and his family members were earlier in possession but so far assignment of injuries to deceased and injured witnesses are concerned, same are attributed to Siyaram Yadav, Hanuman Yadav, Kalla, Sivaram, Om Prakash, Dhanna, Kishan, Shrawan, Jai Narayan and Jagan Choudhary. (iv) That the written report is totally silent regarding presence of Tejpal at the spot and in FIR no specific injury has been attributed to Tejpal." 4. We have also held that the petitioner Tejpal had not accompanied his co-accused to the fields, where the complainant party had committed offence of trespass. Complainant party stayed in the field in possession of the accused to the annoyance of the accused. Regarding the role of the present petitioner Tejpal, in our judgment we have noted as under: "39. We can examine the prosecution case from another angle also. In written report, it is stated that family of Tejpal came to prevent them. Earlier the possession of the land was with family of Tejpal. In written report (Exhibit-P.W. 1) no role has been assigned to Tejpal. His presence at the spot has not been recorded in written report (Exhibit-P/1), even though it is stated that earlier possession on the land was of the family of Tejpal. Later in the evening, Ramkripal (PW.9) submitted another written report (Exhibit-P/7) in which role has been assigned to Tejpal. Rather he has been named as author of the fatal injury. To overcome this, Anil (P.W. 1) in the court took a stand that the Investigating Officer was under the influence of Tejpal, however, he admitted that he had made no written report against the Investigating Officer. The presence of Tejpal at the spot stands doubted by evidence of Head Constable Om Prakash Singh (PW. 19). This witness stated that on 19.5.1999; he received a wireless message from Head Constable Ramkaran (P.W. 24) that there is apprehension of fight between Yadavs (accused) and Pareeks (complainant). 40. Om Prakash Singh (PW. 19) stated that meanwhile Tejpal came and informed that force be sent as fight may erupt and thereafter he had reached at the spot. 19). This witness stated that on 19.5.1999; he received a wireless message from Head Constable Ramkaran (P.W. 24) that there is apprehension of fight between Yadavs (accused) and Pareeks (complainant). 40. Om Prakash Singh (PW. 19) stated that meanwhile Tejpal came and informed that force be sent as fight may erupt and thereafter he had reached at the spot. The exact words stated by this witness are as under :- ^^bl chp esa rstiky ;kno ,Dl ,eå,yå,å pkSew vk;s] ftUgksaus dgk fd >xM+k gksus okyk gS] ogkWa tkCrk djksA eSa pkSdh gLrsMk igqap dj jkedj.k dks ysdj xksjh dk ckl fookfnr tehu ij igqapk] mlls igys >xM+k gks pqdk FkkA vkSj et:c ogka ls jokuk gks pqds FksA bl ij eSa ogkWa ls jokuk gksdj lh/kk gh Fkkus ij vk;k esjs lkFk ujirflag] foisUnz flag Fks] Fkkus ij eSa vk;k rks et:c vLirky esa Fks] >xM+s dh lwpuk ,låihå lkgc dks nh FkhA** 41. Constable Dashrath Singh (PW. 22) stated that at about 11:00 - 11:30 A.M., Head Constable Om Prakash Singh (PW. 19) was talking with a person. After the man had left, Head Constable Om Prakash Singh informed that the said person was Tejpal. 42. Constable Dharmendra Kumar (PW. 16) also stated that he had sent a wireless message to Head Constable Om Prakash Singh (PW. 19) that the dispute is likely to erupt between the family of Yadavs and Pareeks. 43. The document Exhibit-D/49 which is Daily Diary Entry, being entry No. 215 recorded at 10:55 AM notices that Tejpal had informed the police that in spite of stay order, Pareeks of the village had gathered to dispossess them. Thus, Tejpal was not present at the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution witnesses including injured witnesses have scant regard for the truth. They specially have not only made an attempt to shift the place of occurrence but introduced Tejpal as accused also, even though his presence is recorded in the police station, where he had made a report (Exhibit-D/49) at 10:55 AM on the day of occurrence. (Emphasis supplied) 5. Our judgment dated 7.1.2016, rendered in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2007 be also read as part this order. 6. For the detailed reasons given in the judgment of even date, extracts of which we have reproduced herein above, we are of the view that the order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. (Emphasis supplied) 5. Our judgment dated 7.1.2016, rendered in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1570/2007 be also read as part this order. 6. For the detailed reasons given in the judgment of even date, extracts of which we have reproduced herein above, we are of the view that the order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. Hence, the present revision petition No. 775/2004 is accepted and the impugned order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 13/2004 (106/2001) (90/99) is quashed.