JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioners whose names cropped up in course of investigation of Buxar (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 are aggrieved by and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 13.11.2007 passed by Sri A.K. Srivastava, the learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.-V, Buxar in the resultant Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2007, whereby he has refused the prayer of discharge made by all the petitioners. 2. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are members of the same family and they have not been named in the First Information Report and as it would appear that their names transpired in course of the investigation after about three months of the occurrence which may be available from paragraph 49 of the case diary. It was also submitted that from the statement of the relatives of the deceased it is revealed that they had come to know about the petitioners complicity from some secret informer whose services were requisitioned by the police to trace out the culprits but curiously their names or identity have not been disclosed. It was also submitted that the reasons for the occurrence, as stated by the relatives of the deceased, is said to be related with the tilling of lands and that there was no positive cogent material against the petitioners save and except the vague and wild allegations by undisclosed sources and although the petitioners herein had no animosity with the deceased or his family members but they have been implicated in this case at the instance of his agnate, Mukeshwar Yadav, who is a choukidar in the same police station and with whom Title Suit No. 324 of 2002 and Misc. Appeal No. 722 of 2004 are pending. It was also sought to be pointed out that there was no criminal case pending between the parties except the present one and there is no hint of any animosity between them. 3. The learned counsel sought to point out that the date of occurrence is 12.6.2006 and after three months thereof on 14.9.2006 police arrested the petitioner no. 1 without any rhyme or reason and petitioner no. 3 had filed a Misc. Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.9.2006 being Misc. 3. The learned counsel sought to point out that the date of occurrence is 12.6.2006 and after three months thereof on 14.9.2006 police arrested the petitioner no. 1 without any rhyme or reason and petitioner no. 3 had filed a Misc. Petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.9.2006 being Misc. Case No.87 of 2006 inter alia stating therein that Buxar Police had arrested his father on 14.9.2006 in the morning but the police said nothing. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is said, on receipt of the petition called for a report from the Officer Incharge, Buxar P.S. on 15.9.2006 and the report-cum-forwarding Memo in Misc. Case No. 87 of 2006 indicated that accused Sidhnath Singh was arrested by him on 29.2.2006 in Buxar (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 71 of 2006 on the basis of the evidence. It was also sought to be pointed out that there was no eye witness to the occurrence and as such the order framing of charge was bad. 4. The court below appears to have found from paragraphs 50, 51 and 52 of the case diary that there were sufficient materials to frame charges against the petitioners under Section 302/34 I.P.C. This material has been collected in course of the investigation by the police. 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 sufficien ground for conviction, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is finally 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 Court 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 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 ). 5. The court is not required to make a fishing inquiry into 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 ). 5. As laid down in the case of Dillawar Balu Khurana V/s. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2002(1) UJ 269 (SC), in exercising the powers under Section 227 Cr.P.C. the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the questions of training, (sic) the charger (sic) under the said Section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and he thereunder is required to consider the broad probabilities of the case. That apart the submissions raised by the petitioners are in the realm of their defence and can be proved or substantiated only by leading cogent evidence which can be done only during the trial. 6. Due regard being had to the discussions made above and the facts and the circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The application is accordingly dismissed.