JUDGMENT 1. - These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed against the order dated 2.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati in Criminal Case No. 295/2004, whereby he had framed the charges against the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 183 IPC. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition No. (36/2008), but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sikar Rajasthan on 24.4.2008. 2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court had passed the impugned order which is summary in nature and without taken Into consideration the material available on record. Further he has submitted that In the Instant case, no offences, as alleged, are made out and the dispute is of civil nature. 3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. Anoop Dhand, the learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that the trial Court as well as the revisional Court had taken into consideration the record of investigation. They have further submitted that in such view of the matter, the trial Court had not committed any error in framing the charges against the petitioners and in passing the impugned orders. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the orders impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the revisional Court. The order passed by trial Court is summary in nature, by which it appears that there had not been judicious application of mind by it to the material available on record. No doubt, it is true that at the time of framing of charge, the learned trial Court ought not to have passed a detailed order or giving detailed reasoning but in any case, the learned trial Court has to look into the material on record and after judicious application of mind at the time of framing the charges. Unlike at the stage of taking cognizance, where the learned trial Court has only to see as to whether prima facie case is made out to proceed in the matter. Unlike at the stage of taking cognizance, where the learned trial Court has only to see as to whether prima facie case is made out to proceed in the matter. In my considered opinion, at the time of framing of charge, the trial Court has to apply its mind and go through the material on record which includes the documents, if any, filed by the accused petitioners. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of justice, that the learned trial Court should reconsider the matter at the stage of framing of charge, in accordance with law. 5. Resultantly, the petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court, after setting aside the orders impugned 2.1.2007 and 24.4.2008, to decide the matter afresh at the stage of charge, in accordance with law. Taking into consideration the time which has already passed, the trial Court is directed to undertake the aforesaid exercise within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.Petition Allowed. *******