ORDER 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioners herein for assailing the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya in Sessions Case No. 19/2018 (CIS No.38/2018) whereby, the application preferred by the respondent No.2 complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was accepted and the petitioners herein were summoned to face trial alonwith the charge-sheeted accused for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 326 and 143 IPC. 2. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the petitioners Shri Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Manish Dadhich learned counsel representing the complainant, and have gone through the impugned order and the challan papers. 3. The investigating officer, after concluding investigation, filed challan only against the accused Sardul Singh whereas the other accused were exonerated. On going through the challan papers and the statement of the witnesses examined at trial, it is clear that the incident took place all of a sudden when the injured Dilip Kumar tried to block the rain water entering into his house by erecting a mud wall. It is alleged that the accused persons gathered together and started assaulting Dilip Kumar while he was the blocking the water blow. In this process, it is alleged that Sardul Singh gave a Kassi blow on the head of Dilip Kumar and Amritpal Singh also gave him a Kassi blow as a result whereof, Dilip Kumar fell down unconscious. 4. On a perusal of the injury report of Dilip Kumar, it is clear that two wounds were noticed when the medical jurist examined the injured, the first being an incised wound on the temporoparietal region and the other being a bruise on the upper half of the arm. When the injured was examined during the couse of trial as PW-9, he alleged that Amritpal gave a Kassi blow on his Moda (arm) whereas, Sardul Singh gave him a Kassi blow on the head. The other accused were allegedly standing by with lathis in their hands. 5. In this background, I am of the opinion that the order under challenge does not stand to scrutiny so far as the petitioners Nos. The other accused were allegedly standing by with lathis in their hands. 5. In this background, I am of the opinion that the order under challenge does not stand to scrutiny so far as the petitioners Nos. (1) Darshan Singh, (3) Namepal @ Happly, (4) Dalel Singh @ Kalu, (5) Angrej Singh and (6) Sukhmandel Singh @ Mandar Singh are concerned because neither was any common intention of these persons to assault the injured Dilip Kumar nor was the assembly an unlawful one. The incident took place all of a sudden on the trivial issue of Dilip Kumar putting up the mud wall for deviating the blowing rain water. 6. Hence, I am of the opinion that the order impugned deserves to be quashed qua the accused petitioners Darshan Singh, Namepal @ Happly, Dalel Singh @ Kalu, Angrej Singh and Sukhmandel Singh @ Mandar Singh. However, the revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioner No.2 Amritpal Singh is not fit to be accepted. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangariya in Sessions Case No. 19/2018 (CIS No.38/2018) is quashed qua the petitioners Nos.(l) Darshan Singh, (3) Namepal @ Happly, (4) Dalel Singh @ Kalu, (5) Angrej Singh and (6) Sukhmandel Singh @ Mandar Singh, however, the same is affirmed qua the petitioner No.2 Amritpal Singh. 8. Stay application is disposed of.