JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - The present petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. has been brought by Nain Sukh Dass Sukh Ram Dass Parvarik Dharamarth Trust (Regd.), Farookhnagar, District Gurgaon (for short “the Trust”) through Shriniwas Gupta, its Secretary and authorized signatory, challenging the legality of the order dated 24.3.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby, respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Gauri Shankar and Aashish have been ordered to be discharged from the trial originating in FIR No. 199 dated 19.12.2006 at Police Station Farookhnagar, District Gurgaon for an offence punishable under sections 448, 188 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The complainant, Shri Niwas Gupta brought the complaint on which the FIR was registered on the following allegations:- 3. Nainsukh Dass alias Nanwa Mal and Sukh Ram Dass alias Sukhan Mal were ancestors of Shri Niwas Gupta as well as respondents No. 2 and 3, named, Gauri Shankar and Aashish. They formed a trust with the aforesaid name. There have been 14 shops and other properties as also open land of Dharmshala. The trust has elected President and Secretary. Said Trust gave a shop to Sheo Chand Saini on rent vide rent deed dated 18.2.1983. The complainant filed an ejectment petition against said Shiv Chand before Rent Controller, Gurgaon which succeeded. The appeal against the order of eviction was dismissed vide orders dated 30.11.1999. The complainant got the possession of the said shop under the orders of the court through Ballif on 29.1.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid events, Sheo Chand and the other accused including respondents No. 2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy and broke open the lock of the shop and took away the table, chair and other material of Dharamshala. Sheo Chand, his wife Usha Saini and their son Hans Raj Saini took forcible possession of the shop. This act was done by them at the behest of Radhey Sham Aggarwal, Gauri Shankar Aggarwal and Ashish Aggarwal who have been arrayed as accused No. 4 to 6 in the complaint because it was the contention of Sheo Chand in the ejectment petition that he had been paying rent to Radhey Sham Aggarwal, accused No. 4. In this situation, the complainant has filed a suit for possession of the shop against accused No.1 who is in illegal possession thereof. In this situation, the complainant has filed a suit for possession of the shop against accused No.1 who is in illegal possession thereof. When the complaint went to the accused persons, they threatened to kill him if he ever tried to enter the shop. 4. After due investigation, the police presented a challan against five persons, namely, Usha Devi, Sheo Chand, Hans Raj, Gauri Shankar and Ashish. Vide orders dated 2.2.2011 Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon found a prima facie case against the said persons for an offence punishable under sections 448, 188 and 506 IPC and framed charge against them for the said offence on the same day. Gauri Shankar and Ashish preferred revision against the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon and vide orders dated 24.3.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon found that the order dated 2.2.2011 passed by learned trial court finding a prima facie case to have been made out against the petitioner for an offence punishable under sections 448, 188 and 506 IPC , is without any basis and is liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the revision petitioners were discharged in the case. It was however, mentioned by learned revisional court that the complainant may bring appropriate proceedings against the revisionists after declaration of rights from the civil court in the pending civil suit or otherwise. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted primarily that learned revisional court has gone out of its jurisdiction to record findings on merits of the case. According to him, it was not within the domain of the powers of revisional court to record findings on the contentious issues involved in the case. He has further submitted that the Rent Controller had recorded a finding in the eviction order that the Dharamshala is the landlord of the shop in question and that the individuals e.g. respondents No.2 and 3 are not the owners of the said shop. He has further submitted that at the time of framing of charge, the probative value of the material on record could not be taken into account and the material brought on the record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 826. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has formulated his submission on the contents of headnote (f) of the reported judgment which does not tell the whole truth and is rather misleading. A part of what has been laid down by Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India in this regard in Soma Chakravarty V. State through C.B.I. (2007) 5 SCC 403 is brought out as headnote(f). The entire paragraph 14 of the judgment is as under:- “14) In a recent decision, in the case of Soma Chakravarty vs. State through CBI, (2007) 5 SCC 403, this Court has held that the settled legal position is that if on the basis of 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. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. 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. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the Court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge.” 7. It cannot be lost sight of that before framing a charge, the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must satisfy that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge.” 7. It cannot be lost sight of that before framing a charge, the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must satisfy that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. It is also necessary to note that in the aforesaid paragraph, Hon‘ble Apex Court has made it clear that charge may although, be directed to be framed when their exists a strong suspicion but it is trite that court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some material therefor. What is mentioned in the headnote is that the court should not look into the probative value of the material on record. 8. Learned revisional court has not committed any such illegality. It has not gone into the probative value of any material and gave adverse finding thereon. It has simply looked into the allegations of the complainant and has found that there was no prima facie case against the revision petitioners. 9. As is evident from the case of the complainant, reproduced above, the shop in question is owned by the Trust and it was with Sheo Chand Saini on rent. He was evicted therefrom by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and the possession of the shop was taken from him. Sheo Chand, his wife and son reoccupied the said shop after breaking open the lock thereof and they are also alleged to have taken away some material of the Dharamshala. 10. The allegations thereafter of the complainant is that Sheo Chand, his wife and son did reoccupy the shop at the behest of accused Nos. 4 to 6, namely, Radhey Sham Aggarwal, Gauri Shankar Aggarwal and Ashish Aggarwal. Now to support this allegation, reason is given by the complainant in paragraph No. 7 itself of the complaint saying that it was contended by Sheo Chand Saini in the eviction petition that he was paying rent of the shop to accused No. 4, Radhey Sham Aggarwal. He did not claim himself to be tenant under Gauri Shankar and Aashish, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who have been discharged in the case vide the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He did not claim himself to be tenant under Gauri Shankar and Aashish, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who have been discharged in the case vide the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The entire complaint carries no specific allegation against respondents No. 2 and 3 of having committed any offence. 11. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were not party to the eviction proceedings and for this simple reason, they cannot be claimed to have prima facie committed an offence under section 188 IPC. There is no allegation that any one saw respondents No. 2 and 3 talking to Sheo Chand Saini, his wife or son, instigating them to reoccupy the shop or helping them otherwise to do so. The allegation in the complaint is also that in the eviction petition, Sheo Chand had claimed that he was paying rent to Radhey Sham Aggarwal and not respondents No. 2 and 3. There is no word in the complaint about respondents No. 2 and 3 uttering any words amounting to threat required for making out a prima facie case under section 506 IPC. 12. In these circumstances, considering the very allegations of the complainant-petitioner at their face value, no case appears to have been made out for the offence punishable under sections 448, 188 and 506 IPC against respondents No. 2 and 3 and, therefore, learned revisional court has committed no illegality in accepting the revision petition and discharging respondents No. 2 and 3 in the case. The petition is, consequently, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------