JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.5.2010 whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The main contention of the present petitioners is that no such incident, as alleged by the complainant, has taken place. In fact, the respondent No. 2 was beaten by the complainant and F.I.R. has been lodged on his statement and for counter blast, this present F.I.R. has lodged and after investigation Final Report was presented.. Hence, charges should be quashed against the present petitioners. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has stated that there is prima facie material against the present petitioners to charge them for the alleged offence. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the present petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. and specific allegations have been attributed to them in the F.I.R. and in the statements of the witnesses, which are further corroborated by the injury reports. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order of framing charges against the petitioners. 6. The other contention of the present petitioners is that a cross r.1.K. has also been lodged and this incident is fake and concocted one. 7. Be that as it may. This defence version can be put before the learned trial Court. 8. Looking at the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence the revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******