JUDGMENT Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Before coming to the prayer made in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the applicant, it would be proper to set out few facts necessary for disposal of this application. 3. On 20.6.2009 at 6.40 a.m., complainant-Satish Kumar gave information at Police station-Parichhitgarh, District- Meerut stating there in that on the aforesaid date at about 6.15 A.M., applicant-Kunwar Pal, Sonu and Monu assaulted complainant, his father Veer Singh and brother Sachin with knives and lathi causing serious injuries to Veer Singh in the stomach. On the information, a case at Crime No. 323 of 2009 was registered at Police Station. The matter was investigated and after investigation charge-sheet under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC was submitted. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, by order dated 3.12.2009, charges under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC were framed against the applicants by the Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 1126 of 2009. It is in this context that the present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Though the prayer has not been happily worded, however, it appears that by means of this application, the applicants are seeking to quash the order dated 3.12.2009 framing the charge against the applicants on the ground that the Sessions Judge has framed the charges illegally and arbitrarily in a routine manner without going into the merits of the case and without applying his judicial mind. 5. I considered the submissions of both the sides. As regards the merits of the matter, it may be mentioned that at the beginning of the trial and framing of the charge only a prima facie case is to be seen. In other words, the Court has only to determine whether on the basis of material and evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce a conviction can be said reasonable to be possible. In case the Court finds that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed further in the matter, a charge can be framed. Meticulous consideration of materials is uncalled for at this stage. In case the Court finds that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed further in the matter, a charge can be framed. Meticulous consideration of materials is uncalled for at this stage. Looking from this angle I find that from the perusal of the contents of the FIR, statement of complainant, injury reports of all the injured persons made available on the record, it cannot be said that no prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections was made out, therefore, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order framing the charge against the applicants by the trial Court. 6. It may also be mentioned that against an order framing charge, a revision lies. Further It would be noticed that charge was framed on 3.12.2009 while this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been presented quite belatedly on 18.12.2010. No cogent and sufficient reason for such a long delay has been shown. Thus, the application also suffers from laches. 7. In view of the above, this application not only lacks merits but suffers from latches as well, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. —————