ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal, by special leave, is directed against order dated 10.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CRR No.4683 of 2017 whereby the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition preferred by the respondents-accused and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant- complainant on 23.2.2016 lodged an FIR against seven accused persons (including respondent nos. 2 to 5 herein) for assaulting his son, the victim. After the completion of investigation, initially first chargesheet dated 25.4.2016 was filed against three accused persons (viz. Akshay, Rohit and Mohit) and subsequently a supplementary Chargesheet was filed on 18.1.2017, which exonerated the other four accused viz., Naveen (respondent no. 2), Indra Devi (respondent no. 3), Sharanjeet (respondent no. 4) and Dharamjeet (respondent no. 5). The aggrieved complainant - appellant moved an application before the trial Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") to summon the respondent nos. 2 to 5 as additional accused which came to be allowed by the trial Court and consequently respondent Nos.2 to 5 were summoned to face trial. The respondents-accused challenged the same before the High Court in Criminal Revision Petition and the High Court allowed the same by the impugned order dated 10.05.2018 and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court. In turn, the complainant-appellant further carried the matter to this Court by the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has committed grave error in allowing the criminal revision petition. The High Court merely took into account few injuries sustained by the victim while ignoring the role played by the respondents in the crime and the complexity of multiple injuries suffered by the victim which led him to remain bedridden. It is further submitted that in the FIR itself all the seven accused have been named which clearly shows that there is no afterthought to involve the respondent nos. 2 to 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and contended that no case is made out to call for any interference. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have also carefully perused the material placed before us. 2 to 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and contended that no case is made out to call for any interference. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have also carefully perused the material placed before us. It is evident from the record that the appellant's son had suffered multiple injuries on his head and he remained in coma for more than two months and even after more than two years, he had to be bed ridden. The Radiology Report clearly shows multiple injuries with multiple fractures on the head of the victim. 7. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has completely erred in setting aside the well- reasoned order passed by the Trial Court, which has, in detail, considered the legal principles as well as the extent of injuries suffered by the victim along with the evidence of P.W.10, who is an eye witness to the entire incident and has named the private respondents as accused. In our view, the impugned order passed by the High Court is erroneous in law. We, therefore, set aside and the impugned order passed by the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court. 8. The appeal stands allowed in the above-mentioned terms.