Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – This Cr. Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 1.3.1996, passed by Special Judge ,SC/ST and Additional Sessions Judge, Baran,in Sessions Case No. 86/95, where by the petitioner has been charged for offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in the alternate under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. (2) Petitioner submits that from the material on record no prime -facie case is made out against him. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the information given to the S.H.O. by the complainant in the hospital. The police after investigation gave final report against him and filed challan only against Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh. Latreon, on the application of the complainant cogniza- nce was taken against him. From the statement of witnesses Prahad, Ramchandra Singh and Shiv Raj Singh, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that neither Brijraj Singh complainant nor members of his family were present at the time when Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh fired gun-shot on the deceased Gajendra Singh. The name of the petitioner has been lateron included by the complainant on account of business rivalary and litigations pending between the petitioner and complainant Brij Raj Singh. It has been prayed that the charges framed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge be quashed. (3) On the other hand, counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the material on record, charges against the pititioner are established. They further submit that at this stage meticulous examination of the evidence is not required. Further more, whether the evidence against the petitioner is sufficient or not, is no ground for quashing the charges. From the state- ments of Brij Raj Singh, his wife Smt. Santosh, Surendra Singh (brother of the complainant ) and Kumari Nirmala (daughter of complainant), recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that on being asked by the petitioner, Narendra Singh fired gun--shot, on account of which Gajendra Singh died. Under such circumstances, they submit that the charges against the petitioner should not be quashed. They further placed reliance on certain Judgments. (4). I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and also the ruling cited by counsel For the complainant and the petitioner. Under such circumstances, they submit that the charges against the petitioner should not be quashed. They further placed reliance on certain Judgments. (4). I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record and also the ruling cited by counsel For the complainant and the petitioner. I agree with the legal arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant that at this stage maticulous examination of the evidence is not required. The S.H.O. Hamir Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has stated that complainant Brij Raj Singh met him in the Govt. Hospital Baran, at 8.15 a.m. and told his that Narendra singh & Virendra Singh fired gun-shot at his brother Gajendra Singh. Name of Laxmi Narain Petitioner was not mentioned by Brij Raj Singh at that time From the statements of Prahlad, Ramchandra Singh and Shiv Raj Singh recor- ded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is apparent that Brij Raj Singh came at the spot after the gun-shot was fired. According to the statement of Prahlad, he saw only two persons, who were running after firing. He did not mention the name of petitioner Laxmi Narain. According to the statement of Ram Chandra Singh, Surendra Singh (brother of Brij Raj Singh ) came after the gun-shot was fired. He did not mention the name of petitioner Laxmi Narain. Shiv Raj Singh in his statement stated that Brij Raj Singh and his brother came after the gun-shot was already fired. He informed the witnesses that Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh fired gun-shot. He further stated that there were litigations pending between the families of the deceased and accused Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh on account of family- properties. This fact has also been admitted by compinant Brij Raj Singh that disputes regarding family properties are pending between Narendra Singh and his family. According to the statement of Brij Raj Singh, his daughter Nirmala, his wife Smt. Santosh, his brother Surendra Singh, Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh alongwith the Petitioner came to their house and after abusing left their house and went to the railway crossing. The complainant Brij Raj Singh and his family members followed them. The petitioner asked Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh, who were armed with deadly weapons to fire at Gajendra Singh and on being asked by the petitioner, Virendra Singh and Narendra Singh fired. The complainant Brij Raj Singh and his family members followed them. The petitioner asked Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh, who were armed with deadly weapons to fire at Gajendra Singh and on being asked by the petitioner, Virendra Singh and Narendra Singh fired. This statement is contrary to the F.I.R. lodged by Brij Raj Singh. It seems that the name of the petitioner has been included by the complainant on account of business rivalary and enemity . (5) In Niranjan singh Karam Singh Punjabi Advocate vs. Jitendra Bhimaj Bijja and other (1), the Apex Court held as under :– ``From the above discussion, it seems well settled that at the Sections 227-228 stage the court is required to evaluate the material and docu- ments 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. (6) The petitioner is a Senior Advocate of Baran and to say that he asked accused Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh to fire on Gajendra Singh is opposed to common sense particularly when admittedly disputes regarding family properties are pending amongst the accused Narendra Singh and Virendra Singh on the one hand and the family of the complainant on the other hand. After considering the record of the case,I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for the charges framed against him. Consequently, I allow the revision and quash the charges framed againat the petitioner.