SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been preferred by the petitioner-complainant under section 482 Cr. P. C. invoking the inherent powers vested in this Court for quashing of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in S. T. No. 321/93, there by altering the charge to section 326 from section 307 in the prosecution launched by police Ambah and remitting the case under Section 228 (1) (a) of Cr. P. C. to the Magistrate for trial. ( 2 ) THE facts may be briefly described as under: The report of the incident was lodged by the petitioner with the police on 16-5-1993 stating that while at the well his younger brother Ram Singh was making the rope, accused-respondent No. 1 Raghuraj threw the rope and abused him. The said incident was informed to the petitioner by his brother Ram Singh at his house after his return from the well. Thereupon the petitioner went to the well and asked respondent Raghuraj as to what the matter was. The petitioner was then assaulted by means of a farsa by respondent Raghuraj which fell on his head. Respondent No. 3 Lohrey Singh and respondent No. 4 Pooran Singh also assaulted him by means of lath is. The other witness Vishwanath, who came to intervene in the incident, was also assaulted by Pooran Singh by lathi. It was further stated that one Bipati Singh was assaulted by respondent No. 2 Kunwar Singh on his head. In the incident, Raghuraj Singh is alleged to have injured Prakash on the palm of his right hand by farsa and injured Prakash was further assaulted by respondent No. 3 Lohrey Singh on his right foot. Lastly, respondent-Pooran Singh was alleged to have assaulted Puran on his head and the right shoulder. ( 3 ) ON the medical examination of the above said five injured persons, the injuries to all the injured were found to be simple in nature except an injury of Ajmer Singh, the petitioner whose X-ray examination disclosed a fracture on the front-parietal region. ( 4 ) THE police has found initially the offence to be non-cognizable, but later after the medical report was received, the offence was converted to be one under section 307 I. P. C. and the challan was filed after due investigation. ( 4 ) THE police has found initially the offence to be non-cognizable, but later after the medical report was received, the offence was converted to be one under section 307 I. P. C. and the challan was filed after due investigation. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate having found the case to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session committed the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of framing of the charge against the accused-respondents found that there was no evidence on record from which it could be gathered or assumed that the assailants had any intention of causing death of any of the injured persons namely, the petitioner. Ajmer Singh or Vishwanath, Sipati Singh, Puran Singh and Prakash Singh and the Court on the consideration of the nature of injuries received by them, found that the offence under sections 326, 324 and 323/34, I. P. C. was disclosed and, therefore, framed the charges against the respondents 1 to 4 there under and remitted the case under section 228 (1) (a), Cr. P. C. for trial to the Court of the C. J. M. , Morena. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order has preferred this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents against the maintainability of the petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. contending that the prosecution was initiated on the police report and the State having not challenged the impugned order, the complainant is not entitled to prefer this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) I decline to accept the submissions. The powers vested in this Court under section 482, Cr. P. C. are of wide import and can be invoked if there is failure or miscarriage of justice or if the process of the Court is abused. The authority relied upon by the respondents counsel of Dharm Pal v. State, in support of his contention is of no avail to the respondents. There being no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the impugned order by the complainant-petitioner, the only course open to the petitioner was of preferring the petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the petition is held to be maintainable. There being no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the impugned order by the complainant-petitioner, the only course open to the petitioner was of preferring the petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the petition is held to be maintainable. ( 8 ) NOW, adverting to the merits of the case, Shri Suresh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, very strenuously contended that it was not open to the Court below at this stage of framing of charge to weight the evidence and to come to a conclusion that the intention of the assailants respondents was not to cause the death of any of the injured persons. The considerations at the stage of framing of the charge are different than the considerations to be had at the conclusion of the trial. At the stage of framing of the charge, the Court has to see whether a grave suspicion is disclosed against the accused persons of the commission of the alleged offence and on its prima facie satisfaction, the charges have to be framed without further assessment of the material available. Therefore, it was strenuously contended for the petitioner that the learned Court below erred in law in holding that the intention of the respondents was not disclosed to be of causing death of the injured. The charges were, therefore, wrongly framed under sections 326,324 and 323/34, I. P. C. instead of section 307, I. P. C. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Gupta, has placed implicit reliance on the authorities of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, to contend that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is only required to look into the material for the limited purposes to find out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused was made out for the commission of the alleged offence. But even in the authority relied, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited purposes of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. It was further observed that: 11 (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH it is true that the Court is not required to make a roving inquiry into pros and cons of the matter and to weight the evidence as if it was conducting trial, but as observed by their Lordships in Supdt. and Remembrancer, Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar:"at this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. "the Court has to be satisfied about the prima facie existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence. ( 11 ) SHRI Gupta has also relied on Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja. But even in the authority relied, it was observed by the Apex Court that:"it seems well settled that at the Ss. 227-228 stage i. e. stage of framing the charge, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. "the instant case would be viewed hereinafter bearing the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in this regard. ( 12 ) THE intention of the assailants can only be gathered from the circumstances. "the instant case would be viewed hereinafter bearing the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in this regard. ( 12 ) THE intention of the assailants can only be gathered from the circumstances. It was, therefore, further contended for the petitioner that as there was assault from the respondents on the injured persons causing injuries on their heads, they could only be taken to have intended of causing death and it could only be after the trial that the Court on the evidence could have assessed and appreciated whether the ingredients of the offence were established by the prosecution or not. ( 13 ) SHRI L. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the incident was that of a free fight wherein both the parties had suffered the injuries. The complainant himself had gone to the place of incident, being aggrieved or the earlier conduct of the respondents. The incident took place on a trifling matter. There was no previous enmity or any pre-mediation to commit the offence. None of the injured persons had stated that the assault was with the object of causing death. Amongst the injured persons a fracture was disclosed only on the head of the petitioner, but merely because an injury resulted into a fracture, it could not be presumed prima facie that the intention of the respondents was to cause death. The utterances made by the accused while committing the offence and the impressions formed by the injured also provide a circumstance which can be helpful in gathering their intention. The learned Court below, therefore, committed no mistake in framing the charges only under sections 326,324 and 323/34 instead of section 307, I. P. C. ( 14 ) ON the perusal of the record, the F. I. R. and the statements of the injured persons, I have found that none of the injured persons have stated that they were assaulted with the intention of causing death. The injury certificates go to disclose that all the injuries on the injured persons were simple in nature except an injury to the petitioner, which was disclosed on the radiological examination to have resulted in a fracture in the front parietal region. The injury certificates go to disclose that all the injuries on the injured persons were simple in nature except an injury to the petitioner, which was disclosed on the radiological examination to have resulted in a fracture in the front parietal region. The intention is to be gathered from the circumstances of each case, and amongst such circumstances, the motive and in that reference, the previous history whether there was any enmity or any pre-meditation are the relevant circumstances. The limited sifting of the evidence for raising a grave suspension about the commission of the alleged offence has to be made by the Court before framing the charge. In a case where the injured persons themselves do not state that the assault on them was with an intention to cause death and the injuries suffered by them in general were found to be simple in nature, even if an injury had resulted in fracture in the front parietal region it could not be taken that the intention of the assailants was to cause death. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version itself the petitioner had asked respondent Raghuraj Singh as to why his brother was abused and his rope was thrown by him and on his such asking, the incident occurred. The petitioner himself stated in the F. I. R. that they all were bare handed and there was no resistance to the assault, yet no blow except the one above described resulted in the grievous injury allegedly caused by a farsa, even farsa was not used in the incident from its sharp side as only a lacerated wound was found on the head of the petitioner and as there was no incised injury to any of the other illiured persons also. ( 16 ) IN the above facts and circumstances viewed in the light of the broad principle laid down by the Supreme Court. I have found no substance in this petition. The view taken by the Court below cannot be said to be perverse, unreasonable or illegal and as such the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court under the inherent powers. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Record shall be sent back posthaste. Petition dismissed. .