Amar Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Revisionist Surendra Pal Singh has preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2010, passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Agra in Case Crime No. 364 of 2007 (S.T. No. 293 of 2009), State vs. Surendra Pal, under sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34, 506 IPC, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra whereby the charges were framed against the revisionist in the aforesaid sections.

2. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of this revision are that the First Information Report was lodged by the respondent no. 2, Smt. Asha Parihar with the allegation that the marriage of informant was solemnized with Harvir Singh according to Hindu rites and rituals on 01.12.2002. In the marriage, the father of the informant spent Rs. 11,50,000/- in cash and also given furniture, jewellery and cloths but the husband and in-laws were not satisfied and used to harass and did marpeet by raising demand of luxury car. It was further alleged by the informant that pressure was made upon her for aborting a female child. Anyhow she gave a female child issue but husband and in-laws refused to live with her. On 11.4.2007 at 12.00 P.M. (noon) when she was in father's house the husband and in-laws namely S.P. Singh (father-in-law, Smt Urmila (mother-in-law) came and her husband Harvir Singh fired and her father-in-law putting dhata on mouth and armed with lathi caused injury to her. The mother-in-law caught her neck by rope with the help of revisionist. Harvir Singh caused injury by knife also. She identified the revisionist when dhata got opened during marpeet.

3. The Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation submitted the charge sheet only against the revisionist Surendra Pal Singh (father-in-law) in the above mentioned sections. Rests were exonerated as their complicity in the crime were not prima facie found proved. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the sessions court where the charges are framed in the above mentioned sections against the revisionist.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the trial Court, the revisionist filed this revision questioning the order dated 16.3.2010 whereby the charges were framed against the revisionist.

5. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri A.B.L. Gour, senior counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Gour and perused the record.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused-revisionist that opposite party no. 2 Smt. Asha Parihar was said to be medically examined on 11.4.2007 and on her body red bruises and one incised wound measuring 2 cm. x 0.5cm x skin to muscle deep on left side back upper part were found but no grievous injury was found on the person of the informant. It is alleged that incised wound caused by Harvir Singjh and revisionist caused injuries by lathi. In the statement of Amit Kumar only Harvir Singh opened fired which did not hit to anybody. Participation of other two co-accused persons namely Harvir Singh and Smt. Urmila was found false and only charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist. It is further submitted that no offence is made out against the revisionist.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant contended that only against the revisionist, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet and after taking cognizance, the Trial Court framed the charges vide order dated 16.3.2010, which is under challenge, in which there is no illegality in framing the charges against the accused-revisionist. It is further contended that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 did not pay any money in lieu of maintenance and the court allowed the maintenance of Rs. 5100/- per month. The court further directed the Station House Officer of the police Station Sikandra to deliver possession to live in the aforesaid house. The opposite party no. 2 took possession of the house with the help of police. As soon as police personnels left the place aft