( 1 ) THIS petition is preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 29-11-2008 passed by C. J. M. Bareily in Criminal case no. 1404 of 2007 and order dated 27-1-2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly in Crl. Revision no. 14 of 2009. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no criminal liability is made against the petitioners even then learned Magistrate has ordered for framing charge against the petitioners. For framing of charge in warrant triable cases court has simply to consider police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons as required under section 239 Cr. P. C. But if upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. ( 3 ) IN the impugned order dated 29-11-2008 learned C. J. M. has considered the factual aspect of the case alongwith documents submitted by the police and he was of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused have committed offence and then passed impugned order for framing charge. Revisional court has also considered this fact in criminal revision no. 14 of 2009 and after observing that no illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned has dismissed the revision at threshold. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has cited rulings of Ram Biraji Devi and another vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 669, Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal [2008 (60) ACC 1] and Suresh Rangnathan and others vs. State of U. P. and another [2008 (60) ACC 13 (H)]. ( 5 ) IN the case Ram Biraji Devi (Supra) the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings because it was found that no prima facie case was made out against the accused involving them in the alleged offence. ( 5 ) IN the case Ram Biraji Devi (Supra) the Apex Court has quashed the proceedings because it was found that no prima facie case was made out against the accused involving them in the alleged offence. ( 6 ) IN the present case F. I. R. was got registered in crime no. 345 of 2006 under section 420, 406, 506 I. P. C. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet within the period as ordered by the High Court. Witnesses have given statement before investigating officer under section 161 Cr. P. C. These documents were produced before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate after appreciating the entire evidences has ordered for framing of charge against the petitioners. Merely because civil liability is made out there is no reason to stop criminal proceeding, if prima facie criminal offence are made out against the petitioners. Without affecting merit of the case, learned Magistrate was of the view that there is ground for presuming that accused have committed offence. Detail scrutiny of the evidence at the time of framing of charge is not required. ( 7 ) LEARNED Magistrate and the revisional court have passed suitable orders which are not liable to be quashed. .