JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. the petitioners seek quashing of charges framed against them vide order dated 16.11.1994 for offences under Sections 148, 452, 323, 325/149 and 307 I.P.C. The learned trial court framed the charges under the Sections noticed above. The petitioners denied the charges and claimed trial. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although number of persons received injuries including the injury of fracture on skull right parietal bone and there are number of persons who sustained injuries but since no specific role has been assigned to various persons and, therefore, the trial court erred in framing the charges against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the order framing charges, is not a reasoned one and, therefore, the trial court committed illegality in framing the charges against the petitioners. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the trial court after considering the entire material placed before it, reached to a prima facie conclusion that there is a ground to proceed against the petitioners for the offences noticed above and accordingly, has rightly framed the charges vide the order impugned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, reported in 2000 (1) SCC 722 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges. 4. It is settled law that the High Court normally would not by exercising revisional power, upset the finding of the trial court while framing charges by shifting and weighing the evidence recorded during the investigation. White powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are exercised by this Court, it would not be open to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. The powers are exercised sparingly and cautiously in rarest of rare cases. These powers can be exercised when it is shown that there is a legal bar against continuance of the criminal proceedings and framing of charge and the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. 5. 5. In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (SC) 499 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. If on the basis of material on record, the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence, the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 659 has held as under: "If on the basis of materials on record a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into: the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage." 6. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court, in my considered opinion, there is no illegality in the order of the trial court framing charges. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******