Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2011, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, District Chittorgarh, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 302, 460 and 120B IPC, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 06.01.2007, one Vishal Salvi had submitted a written report before the Police Station Pratapgarh, wherein he claimed that around 7:45 PM, he was sitting in the office of Mr. Giriraj Joshi, Advocate. Suddenly a man walked in to the office and pulled out a fire arm. He placed the fire arm on Mr. Joshi's temple and fired a shot. He also shot Mr. Joshi on the right side of his chest. Mr. Joshi collapsed at the spot; the attacker fled away. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No.17/2007, was chalked out for offences under Sections 302, 458 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that Ameen Khan, Rosham Khan and Bablu invited Wasim Khan to their house, where they conspired to kill Mr. Giriraj Joshi as he had a land belonging the Idghah and was earning a lot of money from selling the land, but without sharing the money with them. These accused-persons were of the opinion that Mr. Joshi was an obstacle in selling the land and in earning profit. Therefore, they had to get rid him. Subsequently, Bablu met Chunnu in the Pratapgarh Jail, and hired his services for finishing of Mr. Giriraj Joshi. It is Chunnu who had entered the office of Mr. Joshi and had killed him. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Wasim Khan, Ameen Khan, Bablu @ Sharafatulla Khan, Shakir, Mustaffa and Bauddin for offences under Sections 302, 460, 460 read with Section 120B IPC and for offence under Section 5/25 IPC of Arms Act. Since Chunnu @ Imran and Rosham Khan could not be arrested, the investigation against them was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. On 25.01.2008, Chunnu @ Imran surrendered before the learned trial court. Subsequently, on 22.04.2008, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him on 22.04.2008. 4. On 05.11.2008, Rosham Khan was arrested. During the investigation against Rosham Khan, the Police recorded the statements of Mr. Praveen Joshi, Mr. Vipin Joshi and Labhchand Patwari. On 25.01.2008, Chunnu @ Imran surrendered before the learned trial court. Subsequently, on 22.04.2008, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him on 22.04.2008. 4. On 05.11.2008, Rosham Khan was arrested. During the investigation against Rosham Khan, the Police recorded the statements of Mr. Praveen Joshi, Mr. Vipin Joshi and Labhchand Patwari. On the basis of the statements of these three persons, and on the basis of interrogation note of Rosham Khan, a new story emerged with regard to the murder of Mr. Giriraj Joshi. It was revealed to the Police that Mr. Joshi had been protesting against the carving out of different colonies in Pratapgarh, such as, Shreeji Vihar, Sidharth Nagar and Sidhi Vinayak Nagar. Against carving out of these colonies, Mr. Joshi had been filing complaints both before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and before the Municipality. Due to his protest, both the present petitioners, Mr. Ghulam Abbas and Prem Mohan Somani, began to feel the heat, as Mr. Somani happened to be the Chairman of the Municipality. In order to compromise with Mr. Joshi, allegedly Mr. Somani sent one Mr. Mahaveer Chandalia with Rs.15,00,000/- and with a proposal to Mr. Joshi that he is welcome to become a partner of 10 % of the amount which they would earn from the sale of the plots. However, Mr. Joshi dismissed the said proposal. Thereafter, allegedly Mr. Somani paid Rs.20,00,000/- to Rosham Khan to get rid of Mr. Joshi. Furthermore, according to the Police, on the date of the incident, the call details indicate that Mr. Somani had spoken to Rosham Khan at least ten times. The last call was made just two minutes before the actual murder took place. On the basis of these investigation, on 28.01.2009, the Police submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against Rosham Khan, and kept the investigation pending against the present petitioners. Subsequently, on 18.09.2009 a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the present petitioners. After hearing the prosecution as well as the accused, vide order dated 11.05.2011, the learned Judge framed the charges for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. Relying on the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. ( (1979) 3 SCC 4 ), Mr. Mahesh Boda, Sr. After hearing the prosecution as well as the accused, vide order dated 11.05.2011, the learned Judge framed the charges for the aforementioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. 5. Relying on the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. ( (1979) 3 SCC 4 ), Mr. Mahesh Boda, Sr. Advocate and the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, has vehemently contended that while framing the charge, the court should neither act as a mere post–office, nor as a mouthpiece for the prosecution. In fact, the court has a solemn duty to sift through the evidence to consider if there is material to proceed against the accused-offender or not ? Moreover, it should discover whether there is a prima facie evidence against the accused-offender or is the evidence unworthy of acceptance? In case there are two interpretations, then the court should discharge the offender. 6. Secondly, the Police has gathered only five pieces of evidence against the accused-petitioners : firstly, the statement of Mr. Praveen Joshi; secondly, the statement of Mr. Vipin Joshi; thirdly, the statement of Mr. Hrishabh Lal; fourthly, the call details supplied by Mr. Praveen Joshi; fifthly, the copies of the complaints filed by Mr. Giriraj Joshi against the accused-petitioners for carving out the plots in the aforementioned colonies. Mr. Boda has vehemently contended that the statements of Mr. Praveen Joshi and Mr. Vipin Joshi were recorded by the Police even earlier, when it had filed a charge-sheet against the co-accused, Wasim Khan, Ameen Khan, Bablu @ Sharafatulla Khan etc. However, in those statements, neither Mr. Praveen Joshi, nor Mr. Vipin Joshi had revealed the involvement of the present petitioners. Therefore, the supplementary statements recorded in the charge-sheet of Rosham Khan lose much of their probative value. Hence, the same could not be relied upon by the learned trial court for framing the charges. 7. Thirdly, the call details have not been retrieved from the concerned mobile company. Instead, the call details have been supplied by Mr. Praveen Joshi. Thus, it is not a genuine record of the call details. Therefore, it, too, has no probative value. 8. Fourthly, although the Police claims that the petitioner, Prem Mohan Somani, had sent a proposal through Mahaveer Chandalia along with an offer of Rs.15,00,000/- to Mr. Giriraj Joshi, yet the Police has not recorded the statement of Mr. Mahaveer Chandalia. Thus, it is not a genuine record of the call details. Therefore, it, too, has no probative value. 8. Fourthly, although the Police claims that the petitioner, Prem Mohan Somani, had sent a proposal through Mahaveer Chandalia along with an offer of Rs.15,00,000/- to Mr. Giriraj Joshi, yet the Police has not recorded the statement of Mr. Mahaveer Chandalia. Therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the Police. 9. Lastly, the Police has come with two different theories of conspiracy. One regarding the involvement of Wasim Khan, Ameen Khan etc. with regard to the Idgaha land, and the other regarding Rosham Khan and the present petitioners with regard to the obstacle created by Mr. Joshi against carving out of the colonies. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is an unbelievable one. Hence, the learned Judge has committed an illegality in framing the charge. 10. Relying on the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation ( (2010) 9 SCC 368 = 2010(4) RLW 3435 (SC)), Mr. O.P. Singhania, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has strenuously contended that jurisdiction of the trial court while framing the charge is an extremely limited one. Although it can sift through the evidence, but the sifting is done in order to see if a grave suspicion is created that the offence has been committed by the offender or not. The learned trial court, at the initial stage of framing of the charge, can neither discuss the probative value of the evidence, nor discuss the pros and cons of the prosecution case. At this initial stage, the trial court is duty bound to consider the broad outlines of the prosecution case. It cannot meticulously examine the evidence to see if the trial will even-tually lead to the conviction of the offender. In case, there is evidence which points the needle of the suspicion towards the offender, then the learned trial court would be justified in framing the charges against the offender. 11. Secondly, it is not a case where the prosecution has come up with two contradictory stories. In fact, Mr. Giriraj Joshi was such a prominent lawyer, who had stood for the rule of law, and had opposed the illegal activities of both the present petitioners and of the other co-accused persons. Mr. 11. Secondly, it is not a case where the prosecution has come up with two contradictory stories. In fact, Mr. Giriraj Joshi was such a prominent lawyer, who had stood for the rule of law, and had opposed the illegal activities of both the present petitioners and of the other co-accused persons. Mr. Somani, who was the Chairman of the Municipality and the other co-accused persons such as Wasim Khan, Ameen Khan, Bablu @ Sharafatulla Khan etc., both of them found Mr. Joshi as a great obstacle in achieving their nefarious activities. Thus, both sets of people decided to get rid of Mr. Joshi. The common lynch– pin between the two sets of accused-persons was Rosham Khan. According to the Police, Rosham Khan was given Rs.20,00,000/- to hire the services of Chunnu. Even otherwise, according to the charge-sheet of Washim Khan and others, Chunnu was hired for killing Mr. Giriraj Joshi. 12. Thirdly, while investigating the case of Wasim Khan and others, there was no occasion for Mr. Praveen Joshi and Mr. Vipin Joshi to reveal the angle involving the present-petitioners. In the alternative, even if their statements qua the present petitioners were recorded after an inordinate delay, at the time of framing of the charge, the court cannot go into the question of the probative value of these statements. At the stage of framing of the charge, it must accept the statements at their face value. At this stage, the trial court cannot adjudicate upon the issue as to the consequences of the delayed recording of the statement; such an issue can be thrashed out only during the course of the trial. 13. Fourthly, similarly, whether the call details submitted by Mr. Praveen Joshi are relevant, are admissible and what is their probative value, these are issues which need to be discussed and debated during the course of the trial. 14. Fifthly, according to the learned counsel, a holistic view of the evidence gathered by the Police does create grave suspicion that the petitioners had entered into a conspiracy to get rid of Mr. Joshi. 15. Lastly, the evidence with regard to the conspiracy is ordinarily not an evidence which is apparent. It has to be inferred from the evidence produced by the prosecution. Thus, it will be too early in the day to microscopically examine the evidence and to discharge the petitioners. 16. Joshi. 15. Lastly, the evidence with regard to the conspiracy is ordinarily not an evidence which is apparent. It has to be inferred from the evidence produced by the prosecution. Thus, it will be too early in the day to microscopically examine the evidence and to discharge the petitioners. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, as well as the charge-sheet, and examined the case law cited at the Bar. 17. In the case of Sajjan Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles which should guide the framing of the charge by the learned trial Court. The said principles are as under : On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge : (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Sec.227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited propose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to deter-mine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office and a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) if on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (iv) if on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 18. A distinction has to be made between “taking of a cognizance” and “framing of the charge”. While taking cognizance of an offence, the court is concerned with the existence of a prima facie case to show that an offence has, indeed, occurred. However, while framing of charge, the court moves a step further : it is concerned with the existence of a strong prima facie case, or of a grave suspicion, pointing to the fact that the offence may have been committed by the offender. In order to infer the existence of grave suspicion, the trial court is permitted to sift through the evidence. However, while sifting through the evidence, the trial court is not permitted to microscopically examine and critically analyze the evidence. At the moment of framing of the charge, the trial court is concerned with visualizing the broad outlines of the prosecution case. It cannot delve into the minute details of the prosecution case. However, while sifting through the evidence, the trial court is not permitted to microscopically examine and critically analyze the evidence. At the moment of framing of the charge, the trial court is concerned with visualizing the broad outlines of the prosecution case. It cannot delve into the minute details of the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned trial court cannot go into the pros and cons of the prosecution case. It can neither go into the issues which would arise during the course of the trial, nor it can go into the legitimacy of the defence story. The learned trial court must confine itself within the well defined parameters stated above by the Apex Court. To do otherwise is to overstep one's well defined jurisdiction. 19. The mind of a man is not only agile, but is also subtle. The criminal mind of a person can be as ephemeral as a mirage, or it can be as confusing as kaleidoscope. Therefore, conspiracy may not be obvious from overt act. It has to be inferred from covert acts. After all, conspiracy is not hatched in broad day light. It is planned in the dark womb of the night, although it may be carried out in the broad day light. Therefore, the issues whether a conspiracy actually existed, the extent to which the conspiracy existed, the parties who were involved in the conspiracy, such issues cannot be adjudicate upon at the time of framing of the charge. Such principal issues, and other ancillary issues, need to be deciphered during the course of the trial. 20. In the first blush, the prosecution seems to be narrating two different stories. Yet, on a closer scrutiny of the case, a grave possibility does exist that both the stories are actually two Acts in the same play. Since Mr. Joshi was stepping on too many toes, it is not surprising if he had invited the wrath of Wasim Khan and others, on the one hand, and of the present petitioners, on the other hand. Rosham Khan, prima facie, appears to be the lynch–pin who connects both the strands of the story. It is not necessary that the prosecution should narrate a single thread of story line. Rosham Khan, prima facie, appears to be the lynch–pin who connects both the strands of the story. It is not necessary that the prosecution should narrate a single thread of story line. In complex criminal cases, especially those involving conspiracy, the narration of the story may exist at two different levels; at the end of the trial, one may discover that one story actually flows into the other story. Therefore, it is for the trial court to discover the inter–relationship between the charge-sheet filed against Wasim Khan and others and the charge-sheet submitted against Rosham Khan and the present petitioners. It is too early in the day to adjudicate about the inter–relationship between the two different strands of the case. 21. Although it is true that the statements of Mr. Praveen Joshi and Mr. Vipin Joshi, with regard to the present petitioners, were recorded after an inordinate delay, but the consequence of such delay cannot be assessed at this juncture. As, it is for the trial court to assess and to evaluate the probative value of the statement during the course of the trial. Prima facie both the witnesses do reveal the fact that the petitioners were irked by the constant protest made by Mr. Giriraj Joshi against carving out of the plots in different societies. The complaints filed by Mr. Giriraj Joshi, which are part of the charge-sheet, reveal that he was having a running battle with the petitioners. Of course, the learned counsel has claimed that even these complaints could not stop the carving out of the colonies. Therefore, there was no reason for the petitioners to be irritated with Mr. Giriraj Joshi. However, at times, animosity is not something which is apparent on the surface : animosity can be deep rooted. Therefore, merely because these complains did not stop the carving out of the plots of the society, it would not necessarily lead to the inference that the petitioners were happy with Mr. Giriraj. 22. As far as the call details are concerned, which have been provided by Mr. Praveen Joshi, again its probative value cannot be assessed at this point in time. Giriraj. 22. As far as the call details are concerned, which have been provided by Mr. Praveen Joshi, again its probative value cannot be assessed at this point in time. Whether the call details are relating to the controversy in issue, whether the call details are admissible as a piece of evidence, whether they tantamount to secondary piece of evidence, whether these call details buttress the prosecution case against the petitioners, all these issues are to be decided by the trial court after going through the complete evidence produced during the trial. The learned Judge could not have delved into these issues at the time of framing of the charges. Had he done so, he would have, clearly, overstepped the parameters mentioned above. He would have entered into an arena which he could not have stepped into even gingerly. Therefore, the contentions raised by Mr. Boda are unacceptable. 23. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed.