JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 17.05.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2010, whereby said court has affirmed the order discharging the accused by the trial court at the stage of Section 245 Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner Bishan Singh, relating to offences punishable under Section 427, 452, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., against the respondent No.2 Prem Singh, respondent No.3 Smt. Pingla Devi and respondent No.4 Smt. Tara Devi before the Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, which was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 32 of 2010. After recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 and that of the witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the respondent No.2 to 4 were summoned by the trial court to face the trial only in respect of offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Nobody has challenged the said summoning order. It further appears that the trial court thereafter proceeded under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., and recorded the statement of PW-1 Bishan Singh (complainant), PW-2 Ram Singh and PW-3 Bhim Singh. 4. Thereafter, the parties were heard on framing charge under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., on 03.09.2010, and the trial court (Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Tehri), after discussing the evidence came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material on the record, to frame charge against the accused Prem Singh, Pingla Devi and Tara Devi, in respect of offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C. The trial court observed that PW-1 Bishan Singh, is not an eye witness of the incident, and PW-2 Ram Singh and PW3 Bhim Singh did not disclose as to how the accused insulted the petitioner. It is further found that there is no mention of threat given by the accused to the petitioner in the statement of the two witnesses. Aggrieved by said order dated 03.09.2010, the complainant (present petitioner) filed the criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Said court also concurred with the view taken by the trial court, after hearing the parties. 5. Aggrieved by said order dated 03.09.2010, the complainant (present petitioner) filed the criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Said court also concurred with the view taken by the trial court, after hearing the parties. 5. I have gone through the copies of the statements of PW-1 Bishan Singh, PW-2 Ram Singh and PW-3 Bhim Singh filed as annexure no.2 with the petition. 6. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the case of R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antuley, 1986, CRI. L. J. 1922, and argued that it is not the unrebutted evidence but the prima facie case which is required to be seen for framing of the charge. Even after applying said principle of Law to the present case, this Court is of the view that prima-facie case, is not made out against the accused/respondent No.2 to 4 to frame charge in respect of offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of I.P.C. 7. Therefore, the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily.