Short Note : 1. By this application under sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicants seek to set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Jabalpur, in Criminal Case No.119 of 1977 of 13-12-1977 charging the applicant No.1 Abdul Shakoor Usmani with offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the applicant No.2 with the same offence though with the help of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Held: Under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an accused person is no doubt entitled to be discharged but only if the Magistrate, on considering the police report the documents submitted with it under section 173, the examination of the accused if any and the submission of the prosecution and the accused, thinks that the charge brought against the accused is groundless but if on the other hand he is of the view that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable and adequately punishable by him, he has to frame a charge in writing (section 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 2. Another way of saying that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence is whether there is 'a prima facie case against him. By prima facie is meant "of first appearance". A case in which there is some evidence in support of the charge or allegation made in it and which will stand unless rebutted. At the stage of the framing of charge it is not required to anticipate what the defence would be or how the case for the prosecution would be met or rebulted. The Magistrate has merely to see whether on the facts alleged in the complaint and as supported by the documents along with the complaint and collected during the investigation on which the prosecution later on proposes to rely, there are reasonable grounds to proceed against the accused. In the formulation of his opinion at the stage of the framing of the charge the question of considering legal or proper evidence simply does not arise; it being left to the state of trial. [See generally State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (Cr. LR (SC) 1977 page, 375]. 3. In the formulation of his opinion at the stage of the framing of the charge the question of considering legal or proper evidence simply does not arise; it being left to the state of trial. [See generally State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (Cr. LR (SC) 1977 page, 375]. 3. Applying the foregoing principles of law, 1 find that the learned Magistrate has not at all gone wrong in charging the two applicants Abdul Shakoor Usmani and Abdul Gani with offence punishable under section 420 IPC, and with offence punishable under section 420 IPC, with the help of section 34 IPC. A person is said to cheat who by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. The narrative of facts, at any rate, on outward appearance, discloses the representation by the applicant No.1 to the complainant inducing him to buy some of the lands in question jointly with the complainant. None the less the applicant No.1 combining with the applicant no. 2 who apparently by his conduct had manifested that the land bought by the complainant was free from any encumbrance sold those lands without the consent or authorization by the complainant without his knowledge to six different person. It, therefore, cannot be said that there was no material before the Magistrate that be could not presume that the accused had committed the offence alleged against them. He has rightly proceeded to frame charges against the two accused-applicants. 4. The powers of High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are exercisable in the rarest of rare cases for the limited purposes of either giving effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. [Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another (AIR 1977 Supreme Court, 2229); also see, Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 1977 Supreme Court, 2185)]. The application of the applicants under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, is misconceived. Cr.L.R. (SC) 1971 P. 375, AIR 1977 SC 2229 and AIR 1977 SC 2185 relied on. Application dismissed.