JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the order dated 03.08.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd Class, Court No. 7, Shimla, District Shimla in Case No. 85 of 2003, whereby charges for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 325 read with Section 34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner. It has been asserted that informant Rajesh Kumar alongwith Kuldeep Kumar made a Rapat to the Police Post Summerhill, Shimla on 07.12.2002 that they alongwith Khem Chand were going from Himachal Pradesh University Hostel to the Library. When they reached Summerhill Circle, 3-4 persons asked them as to where they were going and started beating them. One of the assailants used a sharp-edged object. The names of the assailants were stated to be Suresh Kumar and Shayam. Names of other persons were not known to the informant. The police arrested the assailants and released them on bail. Challan was prepared and presented before the Court. One of the accused Pankaj stopped attending the Court and he was declared a proclaimed offender. Subsequently, Suresh Kumar and Shyam Kumar were acquitted of the charges framed against them vide judgment dated 30.10.2012. The name and parentage of Pankaj were mentioned as Pankaj son of Tek Chand, resident of Sharma Cottage, Middle Sangti, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. in the record as well as the personal bond furnished by him. Rajeev Thakur stood surety of Pankaj. The description of Pankaj was given as 5 feet, 6 inches in the certificate of identity. Rajeev Thakur made a statement on 07.01.2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 7 and he identified the petitioner as Pankaj, who was arrayed as an accused. The learned Court charged the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of Cr.P.C. read Section 34 of IPC. The order qua framing of charge is bad. No case is made out against any of the accused as per the statement of Rajesh Kumar made on oath. The name of Pankaj is shown as Pankaj as son of Tek Chand, resident of Sharma Cottage, Middle Sangti in the copy of the judgment. The petitioner is shown as the son of N.P. Sharma and not the son of Tek Chand. He never resided in Sharma Cottage in Middle Sangti. The learned Trial Court erred in ignoring these facts and wrongly charged the petitioner on the false statement of Rajeev Thakur. The learned Judicial Magistrate held in its judgment that eyewitnesses had shown their ignorance about the fight and did not know the accused; therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The continuation of the proceedings would not serve any purpose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and order qua framing of charge be set aside.

2. I have heard Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Singh learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent-State.

3. Mr. Parav Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused Pankaj was described as the son of Tek Chand, resident of Sharma Cottage, Middle Sangti, Tehsil &District Shimla H.P. in the copy of the judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 7, Shimla, H.P. & the bail bonds, whereas petitioner is the son of N.P.Sharma resident of Thakur Niwas, Lower Court Road, Chakkar Shimla, H.P. The learned Trial Court had wrongly charged the petitioner with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. He further submitted that the other two accused have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2012 as the witnesses failed to identify them in the Court. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will not serve any purpose; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court framing the charge against the petitioner be set aside.

4. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General submit