SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 06.08.2013 limited to the extent that the said order discharges respondent No.10 – Dharmender, son of Ram Singh. The Trial Court has held that prima facie no charge is made out against respondent No.10 – Dharmender.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Dharmender was very much involved in the assault on the petitioner/complainant and his family.

3. It may be noticed that the name of Dharmender does not figure in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Dharmender was present. However, since the petitioner was dazed after the incident, he must have omitted the name of Dharmender while making a complaint. However, his name subsequently figures in a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given by the brother of the petitioner.

5. It is alleged in the FIR that an altercation had taken place with the petitioner wherein eight persons are alleged to have come into his house and assaulted the petitioner and his family members with sticks and rods.

6. Perusal of the FIR negates the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was dazed. This observation is be