Judgment/Order : 1. This revision has arisen out of order dt. 12.4.2016 passed by learned ADJ No.3, Siker under Section 216 Cr.P.C., in Sessions Case No.90/2012. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per FIR when the victim was in a vehicle Prathvi Raj Kajla and Deen Dayal intercepted. Prathvi Raj caught his collar and tried to pull him out whereas Deen Dayal fired a gun shot on the wind screen of the vehicle by a 12 bore gun, causing injury on victim’s left hand and head. As per FIR there was no third assailant. Police after investigation filed a charge sheet against Prathvi Raj for offence u/s 307, 326 IPC and against Shrichand for offence u/s 5/27 Arms Act and investigation against Deen Dayal and others was kept pending u/s 173 (8) Cr.P.C. As per factual report submitted today by the Investigation Officer, latter on the Investigation was made by CID (CB) and supplementary charge sheet against Shrichand for offence u/s 307 and 326 IPC was filed and investigation against Deen Dayal was closed for want of evidence. 3. Learned Trial Court charged Prathvi Raj vide order dt.23.5.2013 for the offence u/s 307/34 and 306/34 IPC and charged Shrichand for the offence u/s 5/27 Arms Act. The order of framing these charges was challenged in the High Court through revision. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt.3.1.2014, while disposing of the revision on request of the petitioners observed that they want liberty to move an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. before Trial Court at appropriate stage of the trial, disposed of the revision and the liberty to the petitioners to file an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. before Trial Court at appropriate stage and upon moving the said application directed the Trial Court to decide the said application first and only thereafter proceed further in the matter. 4. The petitioners moved an application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. Whereupon learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order by which the application has been turned down but in the order, matter of only Shrichand has been discussed, nothing has been considered and decided with regard to charge framed against petitioner Prathvi Raj. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Shrichand is a licenced owner of the gun, seized in the matter. There is no evidence on record to connect this gun with the alleged crime. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that Shrichand is a licenced owner of the gun, seized in the matter. There is no evidence on record to connect this gun with the alleged crime. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a reasoned order has been passed by learned Trial Court and it requires no indulgence by this Court. 7. I have gone through the rival submissions and all the material available on record. In compliance of order dt. 3.1.2014 passed by this Court in S.B. Revision Petition No.714/2013, learned Trial Court was ought to pass order u/s 216 Cr.P.C. with regard to both the petitioners. However, order impugned passed on application u/s 216 Cr.P.C does not contain any consideration or discussion with regard to charge framed against petitioner Prathvi Raj. 8. In view of above, order dt. 12.4.2016 passed by learned Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court with direction to hear afresh both the petitioners on their application u/s 216 Cr.P.C. and pass a reasoned and appropriate order as per law.