JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner whose name surfaced as an accused in course of investigation of Munger (Kotwali) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2003 registered initially against unknown under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act has filed this application for the quashing of the order dated 31.3.2006 passed in the resultant Sessions Trial No. 676 of 2003 by Sri Brahma Nand Prasad, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court, Munger, whereby he has rejected the petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for his discharge. 2. It appears from order dated 24.5.2007 passed in the instant application that on the basis of an assertion that charges against the petitioner had been framed and the trial was going on, this Court directed for the continuance of the recording of the evidence upto the stage of closure of the prosecution case. However, it transpired from filing of an Interlocutory Application No. 1763 of 2007 that the order dated 24.5.2007 was based on an erroneous assertion and communication gap and, in fact, no charges had been framed against the petitioner at all till then and accordingly a modification of the earlier order was prayed for. But as it appears that the Bench was not impressed and instead of modifying its earlier order it directed for proceeding with the prosecution case after framing of charge by its order dated 13.11.2007. 3. Assailing the impugned order, it was sought to be submitted that the petitioner had been roped in in the case without there being any material evidence showing his complicity in the alleged occurrence. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that even the father of the deceased, the informant, had not raised any suspicion against any person leave alone the petitioner. It was also sought to be pointed out that the relationship between the deceased and his brother, Bisheshwar Mandal, was not cordial and a litigation inter se was pending and there was sufficient motive for Bisheshwar Mandal and his other brothers for committing the alleged crime but curiously it was on the basis of the statement of these very persons that the police had implicated the petitioner in this case. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 31.3.2006. 4. I have perused the impugned order dated 31.3.2006. From a plain reading thereof it is apparent that the court below found sufficient circumstantial evidence against the petitioner from the materials available on the record compelling it to proceed with the framing of the charge. Reading Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. together in juxtaposition at the intial stage the court is not meticulously to judge the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution nor to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is finality to be applied before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. At this stage even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials leading the Magistrate to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of the charges. The court is not required to make a fishing inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh evidence as if it was conducting a trial. Reference in this connection may be placed on the decisions of State of Bihar V/s. Ramesh Singh ( AIR 1977 SC 2018 ) [: 1978 PLJR (SC)14]. 5. There is another aspect of the matter. The High Court had directed to proceed with the case till the closure of the prosecution case by its orders dated 24.5.2007 and 13.11.2007 and these orders not having been challenged before a superior forum had attained finality and the petitioner cannot now raise a grievance against the same. 6. I find no apparent illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court, Munger. 7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The court below is directed to proceed with the trial so that it may reach its finality. The order of stay in terms of order dated 24.5.2007 stands vacated.