The High Court should not interfere with the trial court's order framing a charge unless there is a jurisdictional error or it is apparently so unjust and unfair and contrary to settled principles of law that would cause serious prejudice to the accused.

SWATANTER KUMAR, J.

1. This is a petition under S. 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure where the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur dated 20-4-1995. Vide this order the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has given a prima-facie view that the case of the petitioners squarely falls within the preview of S. 307 of IPC and accordingly directed the charge to be framed. Santokh Singh son of Udham Singh, resident of village Ghanie Ke Banger is an agriculturist. In the elections of the Block Samiti, Salamat Masih was a candidate for Badal Group. On 16-9-1994 Santokh Singh and Surta Singh went to the Bera of Ajit Singh son of Tara Singh in connection with canvassing for the election. At about 8.00 p.m. they and Ajit Singh were going from the Dera of Ajit Singh towards village Ghanie Ke Banger for canvassing. When they reached on the turning of metalled road accused Amrik Singh empty handed, Malkiat Singh alias Rana with Gandasi, Manjit Singh alias Mana with Dattar, Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukha with Dang and Sarabjit Singh were found standing at that turning. Amrik Singh asked his companions to catch hold of Santokh Singh and said that he should not be spared and revenge of previous fight should be taken. Upon this, Malkiat Singh gave Gandasi blow on the forehead of Santokh Singh who fell on the ground. Sukhvinder Singh alias Sukha gave two Dang blows on his neck and right side of the head respectively. Sarabjit Singh gave two Dang blows on his left shoulder and right planks respectively. Manjit Singh gave Dattar blow on his right leg. Santokh Singh raised hue and cry. Ajit Singh and Sutra Singh rescued him. The accused are stated to have decamped with their weapons. Later the injured were taken to hospital where they were medically examined. Statement was recorded on 18-9-1994 at 1-45 p.m. Consequently a case under Ss. 326, 302, 323, 148, 149, IPC was registered against all the accused.

2. Later, for some injuries, the patient was kept under observation and after the report of X-rays, injury No. 1 was declared grievous and the doctor opined on 11-11-1994 that injury No. 1 can be dangerous to life in the ordinary course of nature. On these facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the case of the petitioners does not fall under S. 307, IPC and the order of the learned additional Sessions Judge, qurdaspur, dated 20-4-1995 is liable to be set aside. The petitioners at best could be charges for an offence under S. 306, IPC. He further argued that firstly the medico-legal report has been interpolated by the doctor on a subsequent date and that even in that report it has not been recorded that injury No. 1 is dangerous to life. Injury No. 1 has been declared as dangerous to life but it has not been recorded in the report that it is sufficient to cause death in the normal course of nature. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the cases of 4, Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal V/s. E.S.I. Corporation, 1991 (2) RCR 691; and Sudershan Kumar V/s. The State of Haryana, 1983 RCR 379.

3. In reply to this the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable and this Court normally would not interfere in the prima facie view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge because evidence is still to be recorded.

4. It has been pronounced in various judgements by the Supreme Court that the High Court should interfere in rare cases where there is a challenge to the order of summoning or framing of charge by the learned trial Court. Unless there is a jurisdictional error or it is apparently so unjust and unfair and contrary to settled principles of law that would cause serious prejudice to the accused, the High Court would normally not interfere in such orders. In the present case the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the prima facie evidence before him has framed a