JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the order dated September 18, 1991, passed in Criminal Revision No. 91 of 1991, by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, thereby maintaining the order dated March 6, 1991, rendered in Cr. Case No. 55 of 1988, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, on the question of framing of charges under Section 194A read with Sections 276B and 278B of the Income-tax Act. 2. I have heard Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri P. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. It is not necessary to reiterate the facts of the case here. 4. Shri Bagadia has prayed for discharge and quashment of criminal proceedings contending that no case is made out and that the complaint itself did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence with which the applicants were charged. He has also drawn my attention to the Explanation to Section 194A of the Income-tax Act as inserted by amendment made effective from June 1, 1987. The thrust of his argument is that there was no violation of Section 194A of the Income-tax Act as such and the prosecution was thus vexatious, inutile and futile. 5. Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued in support of the tenability of the prosecution and urged that the prosecution was legal and valid and that the charges as framed are sus-tainable. 6. It cannot be disputed that the powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C., are exercisable only in the rarest of rare cases and strictly in an urge to secure the ends of justice. It is, thus, clear that meticulous evaluation of facts or provision of law is not called for at the preliminary stage. The applicants may thus raise all the points available to them before the trial court and in order to facilitate this, observations made by the revisional court in the aforesaid order as urged, are thus required to be anaesthetized. 7. Consequently, even while refusing to order discharge, and leaving the charges undisturbed, I find it just and appropriate to quash the revisional order so that the trial court is left free to consider and decide the points involved without feeling in any way shackled by the observations of the superior court. 8. 7. Consequently, even while refusing to order discharge, and leaving the charges undisturbed, I find it just and appropriate to quash the revisional order so that the trial court is left free to consider and decide the points involved without feeling in any way shackled by the observations of the superior court. 8. In the circumstances, the revisional order dated September 18, 1991, is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to consider all the objections as were raised before the revisional court as also in this court ignoring all objections contained therein and conclude the trial by June 30, 1993, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on February 22, 1993, to take further orders as regards recording of evidence subsequent to the framing of the charges. The record, if received, shall be returned immediately. The petition thus stands disposed of with the observations as above.