JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. CRM-45185-2025

Prayer in this application is for condoning the delay of 04 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 04 days in filing the present revision petition is hereby condoned.

2. CRR-2839-2025 (O&M)

The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.08.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in case bearing FIR No. 04 dated 08.01.2025, registered under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(2) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’), whereby an application filed by him under Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking discharge from commission of offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS, had been dismissed and charges under Sections 118(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of BNS were framed against him.

3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant Suresh alleging that on 08.01.2025, the petitioner along with co-accused Jackie, Manoj, Dinesh and Ganga Ram had opened an attack upon him, when he was standing at the gate of his house. The petitioner had struck blow with a gandassi, whereas the remaining assailants had given kicks and fist blows to him. He was injured and was rushed to the hospital. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner and co-accused were arrested. Investigation now stands completed. Challan has been presented. The petitioner moved an application seeking discharge from offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. In fact, on the fateful day i.e. 08.01.2025, he had started renovation of his house, when the complainant, accompanied by his family members, had reached there armed with weapons and had opened an attack upon him. Arvind, a companion of the complainant, had struck Farsa blow upon the petitioner, thereby injuring his hand. A false case had been registered against him. The only injury sustained by the complainant/victim Suresh was on his right forearm. There was no damage to the ulna and radius bones. The nerves, which had been affected, were repaired by the doctors. The victim had been discharged. A false version as to the injury sustained by the complainant, being dangerous to life, had been procured by the complainant from the doctor concerned as his own sister is posted in the same hospital, wherein the complainant was provided treatment. In fact, no case for commission of offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS has been made out. The members of the complainant party were the aggressors. The learned trial Court did not take all these points into consideration at the time of deciding the aforementioned application, moved by the petitioner seeking discharge from the said offence. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the application moved by the petitioner seeking his discharge from offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that no case for allowing the petition is made out. There are serious and specific allegations against the petitioner. He had struck a blow with a gandassi on the person of the complainant, thereby literally chopping off his right forearm. As per the medical opinion, the injury sustained by the complainant was dangerous to life as it was a deep cut injury on his right wrist. The complainant has suffered heavy blood loss.