JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Awnish Shankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the learned court of Sessions Judge, Ramgarh in Criminal Revision No.13/2016 arising out of Rajrappa P.S.Case No.45/2015, corresponding to G.R.Case No.1315/2015. 3. It has been alleged that on 29.03.2015 at about 7.30 a.m when the informant Bhairav Thakur was sitting outside his house, the accused persons namely Pradeep Thakur @ Gaju Thakur and Chhedi Thakur caught hold of his wife Kundi Devi with bad intention and pushed her on the ground and began to assault her and due to which the Sari of his wife was opened. Seeing this when the informant rushed to save his wife, then accused Chhedi Thakur assaulted him with Bhujali causing bleeding injury on his head. Accused Pradeep Thakur assaulted the informant with knife causing bleeding injury on his left hand. The alleged assault was made with intention to kill the informant. On hulla other accused persons namely Subhash Thakur, TijuThakur, Shyam Dev Thakur, Raju Thakur, Bishnu Thakur, Jitendra Thakur, Bindu Devi, Sita Devi, Baso Devi, Tara Devi and Lakhimani Devi also reached there and assaulted the informant with rod and brick bat with intention to kill him. On the basis of above written report the case has been registered under section 147, 341, 323, 324, 354, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and after investigation the police has submitted charge sheet under section 147, 341, 323, 324 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.01.2016 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the informant preferred the revision. 4. Mr. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners only under sections 147, 341,323, 324 of the I.P.C. He further submits that being aggrieved with the cognizance order dated 19.01.2016, O.P.No.2 filed revision and in the said revision a direction has been issued by the learned Sessions Judge to proceed under sections 307 and 354 I.P.C which was disposed of, by order dated 23.12.2016 and the revisional court remanded back to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Aggrieved with the order dated 23.12.2016 in Cr.Revision No.13/2016, a petition was filed before this Court by the petitioners which was allowed by order dated 03.11.2017 and after quashing the order dated 23.12.2016 the matter was remanded to the revisional court for after hearing the parties to pass a fresh order. Pursuant to that, the revisional court passed the order dated 23.01.2018. Aggrieved with this, the petitioners have filed this petition. 5. Mr. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no intention has been disclosed and inspite of that direction has been issued for incorporating sections 307 and 354 IPC. He further submits that there are several accused persons and the O.P.No.2 and the petitioners are residing in same house and they are relatives. He further submits that charge sheet was submitted in which ingredients of sections 307 and 354 IPC was not there and in that view of the matter, when intention has not been disclosed, the revisional order is bad in law. He submits that so far other sections in which charges are submitted, the petitioners are facing trial and they are only aggrieved with the revisional order by which direction has been issued to proceed under sections 307 and 354 IPC. 6. Mr. Shankar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P.No.2 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the revisional court has considered the entire aspect of the matter and thereafter the direction has been issued. He submits that the intention of the accused is a mixed question of facts which cannot be decided at this stage and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the revisional court. 7. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the impugned order dated 23.01.2018. The revisional court has considered the allegations and has come to the conclusion that weapon is used for the assault by which the informant sustained three injuries which has been recorded on the basis of F.I.R, the injury report and the case diary. It is well settled that so far the intention is concerned that is a mixed question of fact. It is well settled that so far the intention is concerned that is a mixed question of fact. A reference may be made to the case of “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Salim @ Chamru & Anr.”, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , paragraph no.16 thereof is quoted hereinbelow: “16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307 IPC. The determinative question is the intention or knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the injury. The basic difference between Sections 333 and 325 IPC is that Section 325 gets attracted where grievous hurt is caused whereas Section 333 gets attracted if such hurt is caused to a public servant.” 8. The revisional court has passed a reasoned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. No relief can be extended to the petitioners and instant petition [Cr.M.P.No.829 of 2018] is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The trial is already going on and the petitioners are having ample opportunity to prove their case before the trial court.