JUDGMENT 1. - Since both these Cr. Revision Petitions under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 Cr.PC. have been filed against the common order dated 23.7.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 428/2002 whereby, charges for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 420 and 120B IPC have been framed against accused Jitendra, J.R. Tandon, Smt. Kailash Rani and Angrish Tandon, charges for offences under Sections 498A, 420 and 120B IPC have been framed against Smt. Kiran Tandon and Smt. Savita Malhotra and for offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC against SunH Malhotra, Nalini Tandon and G.K. Tandon,_ they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners have filed these revision petitions for quashing of the aforesaid charges framed against them. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that Mst. Charu D/o K.L. Arora was married to Jitendra on 6.12.2000 as per Hindu rites in Jaipur. It is alleged that soon after the marriage it was discovered that Jitendra Tandon was suffering from Schizophrenia and G6P.D. Deficiency diseases for a long time and he had also not qualified the course of Marketing Diploma. These material facts were not only concealed from Mst. Charu and her parents by the accused but false representations were also made and thereby they were cheated by the accused person. Soon after the marriage the couple had gone to Bombay with Smt. Dipti, elder sister of Mst. Charu. His behaviour at Bombay was also abnormal. On their return, both went to their respective parental houses. Ultimately, a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by Mst. Charu for annulment of her marriage with Jitendra Tandon before the learned Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur with the aforesaid allegations. A criminal complaint was also got registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 420, 406 and 120B IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the trial court has vide its order dated 23.7.2003 directed framing of various charges against the accused persons as indicated above. 3. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the charge-sheet are inherently improbable, unreasonable and unbelievable. 3. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations in the charge-sheet are inherently improbable, unreasonable and unbelievable. It is further contended that there is no specific plea that any entrustment of the dowry articles or stridhan was made to the petitioners. There is also no allegation that any notice was given to them for return of the stridhan which was not complied with. The dowry articles and stridhan has since been returned leaving no scope for framing of charge against the accused for offence under Section 406 IPC. It is urged that the parties knew each other very well and were also in the know of the ailment of the boy. Mst. Charu and her parents agreed to this marriage because Mst. Charu was herself suffering from vision problem. It has been admitted before me that it is true that Jitendra Tandon is not a Diploma Holder in Marketing and this fact has been wrongly mentioned in the Bio-data but true facts were known to the parents of the girl. It is further contended that there is no allegation of any physical or mental cruelty having been perpetrated by the petitioners against Mst. Charu. If it had been so, Mst. Charu would not have visited the house of her-in-laws off & on during day hours. The petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed for annulment of the marriage and the F.I.R. has been lodged after more than 3 months of filing of the said petition. It shows that Mst. Charu and her parents were interested only in getting the marriage annulled. Jitendra Tandon and his parents did not oblige them to give consent to the annulment of marriage amicably and, therefore, criminal complaint has been filed in order to put pressure on the petitioners-accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for non-petitioner have contended that at the stage of framing of the charge the court has to see only prima-facie case. The court cannot delve into the merits of the case by entering upon detailed appreciation and examination of the evidence on record. It is submitted that defence of the accused cannot be made basis of discharging the accused persons. 5. The court cannot delve into the merits of the case by entering upon detailed appreciation and examination of the evidence on record. It is submitted that defence of the accused cannot be made basis of discharging the accused persons. 5. The law laid down in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr., (1996) 9 SCC 766 wherein two judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that documents and the materials produced by the accused at the early stage of framing of charge can be considered has since been over ruled by a larger Bench of this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi : 2005(1) W.L.C. (SC) Criminal 207 , wherein it has been held that the trial court cannot consider the materials filed by the accused at the time of framing of the charge. It has been held that at the time of framing of the charge the trial court can consider only materials placed before it by the investigating agency. There is no requirement in law for the court to grant at that stage of framing of charge an opportunity to the accused to produce evidence/defence or to consider such evidence/defence. At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court is required to consider whether there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. 6. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others , three Judges Bench has held that the Magistrate at the stage of framing charges has to see whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima-facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. 7. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh : (2000) 8 SCC 239 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution nor it is required to consider sufficiency of the material to establish the offences against the accused persons. 8. 8. As held in the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Joharl and others (2000) 2 SCC 57 , charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted, cannot show that the accused committed particular offence. The only right the, accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that. The judgment of the High Court quashing the proceedings by looking into the facts filed by the accused in support of his claim that no case was made out against him even before the trial had commenced was reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. In the instant case, a bare perusal of the materials on record including the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. makes it abundantly clear that the trial court has rightly held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The charges cannot be quashed simply on the ground that the allegations are improbable. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly disclose alleged offences against the petitioners and no fault can be found with the approach of the learned trial court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any error, illegality or impropriety. There is no irregularity in the proceedings of the court below. 10. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no justification to interfere in the impugned order in the limited scope of revisions, jurisdiction of this court. 11. Consequently these petitions being devoid of merit and substance are hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******