JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC. has been filed by the accused petitioners against the order dated 16.1.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City in Sessions Case No. 48/2005 whereby charges have been framed against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 326 and 307 IPC. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of Prakash, the complainant, a case being FIR No. 32/2005 came to be registered at P.S. Suroth, District Karauli on 7.3.2005. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The learned court below after hearing both the sides and on the basis of the materials on record framed charges against the petitioners as indicated above vide impugned order which impugned order is under challenge In this petition. 3. It is contended that the injuries sustained by complainant Prakash were not sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of Section 307 IPC so as to justify framing of charge for the said offence against the petitioners and thus the court below has committed serious illegality and material irregularity on account of which the order impugned cannot be sustained. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned-order. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of charge, the Judge is not obliged to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. 7. In the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has given guidelines for the High Courts as well as the lower Courts while dealing with matters of framing charges and has held, as under: "the standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228. 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 charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." 8. In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has further held, as under:- "U/s. 228 the Court has to see whether there is prima facie case against the accused-petitioner or not and evidence has to be looked into for very limited purpose at the stage of charge." 9. In the case of Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Beharl, reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held, as under: "At the stage of framing of charges, meticulous consideration of evidence is not required." 10. In the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and ors., reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 407 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as under:- "It is settled law that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. In such case, there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. It is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed." 11. It is apparent that the entire approach of the High Court is illegal and erroneous. From the reasons recorded by the High Court, it appears that instead of considering the prima facie case, the High Court has appreciated and weighed the materials on record for coming to the conclusion that charge against the respondents could not have been framed." 11. In another case of State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors., reported In (2000) 8 SCC 239 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed, as under: "High Court's power to quash the charge should not be exercised except for strong reasons to hold that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid the abuse of process of the Court the charge needed to be quashed. High Court should not sift the available medical evidence and quash the charge." 12. In another case of Smt. Om Wati v. State reported in AIR 2001 SC 1507 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as under: "Observations and opinion incorporated in post-mortem report cannot be ground to deprive the prosecution from proving that accused was guilty of offence and order discharging accused on that basis in respect of offence u/s. 302 IPC was found illegal. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that High Court should not interfere at initial stage of framing of charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons." 13. In another case of Ram Kumar Luharia v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in JT 2001 (2) SC 79 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, as under:- "At the stage of charge, evidence could not be weighed." 14. Thus, in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners cannot be appreciated at this stage. This apart, the revisional powers of the High Court should not be exercised unless there exists manifest illegality in the order or there is grave miscarriage of justice or there is glaring defect in the procedure or there is manifest error on the point of law, etc.A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the order does not suffer from any one of these infirmities. 15. 15. Consequently, this revision petition absolutely being devoid of merit and substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed and the order dated 16.1.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Hindaun City is hereby affirmed.Revision Dismissed. *******