Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. The instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.PC, is directed against the order dated 24.6.2016, (in short ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, District Una, HP, in Session Trial No.67/2015, whereby charge under Section 307 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioner-accused.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that police of Police Station Haroli, District Una, HP, on the basis of statement having been made by one Sh. Amanjot Singh, S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) under Section 154 of the Cr.PC, registered an FIR No. 110 of 2015 on 4.5.2015, against the petitioner-accused under Section 307 of the IPC. Police on the basis of registration of aforesaid FIR conducted investigation and submitted report under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, alleging therein commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC by the petitioner-accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.6.2016, framed charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the petitioner-accused. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings praying therein quashing of impugned order dated 24.6.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una.

3. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order (Annexure P-2) is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not based upon the correct appreciation of material made available on record by the police along with challan filed by it under Section 173 of the Cr.PC, and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Thakur, while specifically referring to the impugned order strenuously argued that there is/was no application of mind by the court below while framing charge under Section 307 of the IPC against the petitioner-accused and as such, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-accused, who by no stretch of imagination, could be charged with Section 307 of the IPC, especially in view of the material placed on record by the Investigating Agency, along with charge sheet. Mr. Thakur, while specifically inviting attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 24.6.2016 contended that there is no discussion, if any, with regard to the material, on the basis of which, learned Additional Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-accused is required to be charged under Section 307 of the IPC and as such, impugned order being cryptic in nature deserves to be quashed and set-aside. Mr. Thakur, specifically invited attention of this Court to the MLC No. 466/15 and report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Dharamshala, placed on record by the police along with charge-sheet to demonstrate that no prima-facie case, if any, is made out against the petitioner and as such, there was no occasion for the court below to charge the present petitioner accused under Section 307 of the IPC. While specifically inviting attention of this Court to the aforesaid MLC/opinion given by the medical expert, Mr. Thakur stated that no injury, if any, has been found on the neck of the victim/complainant namely Amanjot Singh. He further contended that medical expert has specifically opined that injury is superficial and simple in nature. Mr. Thakur, also invited attention of this Court to the report submitted by the RFSL Dharamshala to demonstrate that even alleged weapon i.e. (Sickle) “Darat” does not contain any human blood. Mr. Thakur contended that there is/was no prima-facie case made out by the prosecution to implicate the petitioner-accused under Section 307 of the IPC and as such, impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain. He also stated that aforesaid opinion was given on 6.5.2015, by the Surgeon of Regional Hospital, U