Judgment K. BHATNAGAR, J. ( 1 ) A complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh by petitioner Bhimsen against the non-petitioner Diwakar Dutt, Executive Engineer, Feeder Division, C. A. D. , R. C. P. Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under sections 323, 504 Indian Penal Code on 12. 7. 82. The allegations in the complaint were that the non-petitioner Executive Engineer had passed an order for opening a Khala in the Khatedari land of the petitioner. The application for copy was filed on 28. 5. 82 and an appeal was preferred before the Superintending Engineer but the non-petitioner by his influence restrained the Superintending Engineer from passing stay order. That, again on 7. 7. 82 petitioner filed an application for another copy of the order passed by the Executive Engineer but the copy was not given rather he orally directed that copy may not be supplied to him. That, on 9. 7. 82 the petitioner filed an application before the non-petitioner to pass an order that copy will not be given, in case he does not desire the issuing of the copy. It was alleged in the complaint that, thereupon the non-petitioner got enraged and gave first blows to the petitioner and turned him out of the office. In support of the averments in the complaint, the petitioner examined himself and two more witnesses viz. Phusaram and Devilal. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 2. 8. 82 rejected the complaint under section 203 Criminal Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Notice was issued to the non-petitioner at the admission stage. Mr. Sandhu put in appearance on behalf of non-petitioner No. 1. ( 2 ) I heard Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sandhu learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 Mr. Arora streneously contended that when there were two supporting witnesses to the evidence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate should not have rejected the complaint. According to him at that stage the Court was only to see whether a prima facie case was made out or not and it was not the concern of the Court to go into the depth of the matter so as to conclude whether it was a fit case for conviction or not. To substantiate has case Mr. According to him at that stage the Court was only to see whether a prima facie case was made out or not and it was not the concern of the Court to go into the depth of the matter so as to conclude whether it was a fit case for conviction or not. To substantiate has case Mr. Arora placed reliance on the principle enunciated in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon appellants v. The State of West Bengal and others, respondents. ( 3 ) MR. Sandhu submitted that there was no question of any refusal of the issuing of copy to the petitioner as the same had been given to him on 2. 6. 82, as is evident from the certified copy of the abstract of the concerned register which have the signatures of Bhimsen petitioner. Mr. Sandhu further contended that when there was allegation for offence under section 323 Indian Penal Code, some medical certificate was expected but none had been filed. ( 4 ) FROM the careful examination of the record of the case, including the statements of the witnesses, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is based on sound reasonings and calls for no interferences. The reason for this conclusion of mine is, that the allegations in the complaint are vague. Though there are two witnesses in support of the statements of the complainant but they do not help him much. One of them is a chance witness sitting beneath the tree. The other is said to have accompanied him. All of them are of the same village. The circumstances enumerated in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses do not show the story to be probable. Mr. Arora does not dispute that one copy of the order the petitioner had received and the same was filed along with the appeal filed before the Superintending Engineer. If one copy had already been given there appears to be no reason for refusing to issue the second copy of the same order. The allegation in the complaint about the non- petitioner by his influence restraining the Superintending Engineer, from passing a stay order in the matter, also does not appear to be correct. If one copy had already been given there appears to be no reason for refusing to issue the second copy of the same order. The allegation in the complaint about the non- petitioner by his influence restraining the Superintending Engineer, from passing a stay order in the matter, also does not appear to be correct. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that on the two applications there is no endorsement of the Court and it falsifies be statement of the co m p Ia in ant. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute on the principle that at the stage of framing charge Courts are not to enter into the niceties of the matter. It is this principle which has been enunciated in the Supreme Court authority referred to by Mr. Arora. Their Lordships were pleased to observe that the words sufficient ground used in sections 203 and 209 mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused from the evidence of the witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit and not that there is sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. Emphasis may be given to the term reasonable degree of credit to the witnesses. In my opinion when the circumstances of the present case clearly indicate that the story was intrinsically untruthful, the learned Magistrate has committed no error in rejecting the complaint so as to call for any interference by this Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily. Revision petition dismissed.