JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Public Prosecutor present in the Court is directed to accept notices. With the consent of both sides, this Cr. Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC is being heard and decided at the stage of admission. 2. By the instant Revision Petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 05th March 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District- Pali in Sessions Case No.33/2010, State v. Varda Ram and others whereby learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under section 341 323, 325 & 307 read with 34 IPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order impugned passed by the learned court below as also papers filed on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 09th April 2008 Smt Badano Devi lodged a written report to Police Station- Takhatgarh, inter alia, alleging thereby that on 08.04.2008 in the evening at 7PM she was going with her husband from Koselav to Baga Gaon having Rs. 20,000/- with them. When they reached near Marudhar school at Koselav, Tulsa Ram abused them without any reason and started following them. Somehow they ran and came to Baba Gaon. When they reached near shop of Laxman, accused Tulsa Ram, Varda Ram, Sona Ram, Bhanwar Lal and Saka Ram came armed with lathis etc and assaulted her husband with intention to kill him. Upon beating her husband fell down. When she tried to rescue him, Varda Ram gave blow on her, she fell down, Varda Ram snatch Rs. 20,000/- from her forcibly and tried to molest her. Then witnesses intervened and thereupon the accused persons ran away, threatening not to take any action. Her husband was admitted in Mahaveer Hospital, Sumerpur. 5. Upon this report, FIR No.41/2008 was registered and after investigation, Police filed challan against Varda Ram and Sona Ram only. During the course of trial, after recording statements, an application under section 319 CrPC was filed, requesting that cognizance against present petitioners may also be taken then learned trial court vide order dated 19th November 2010 took cognizance against present petitioners, for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. 6. During the course of trial, after recording statements, an application under section 319 CrPC was filed, requesting that cognizance against present petitioners may also be taken then learned trial court vide order dated 19th November 2010 took cognizance against present petitioners, for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. 6. Against aforesaid order of cognizance passed by the trial court, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition (No.869/2010) before this Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 15th December 2010. Thereafter, learned court below framed charges against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order framing charges against petitioners is illegal, erroneous and contrary to material available on record. No offences, for which the petitioners have been charged, are made out. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and therefore, present Revision Petition against framing of charge against petitioners deserves to be allowed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State defended the order impugned and submitted that the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court, in a coordinate Bench, has passed an elaborate order in previous Revision Petition No.869/2010 filed by present petitioners, so this Revision Petition against order of framing charges against the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel and gone through the order impugned passed by the trial court below as also order passed by this Court in previous Revision Petition (No.869/2010); I find that the learned court below rightly framed the charges against the petitioners under sections 341, 323, 325 and 307 read with section 34 IPC. Learned court below appears to have committed no error in framing the aforesaid charges against the accused-petitioners on the basis of material available before it. 10. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the court has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. 10. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charges, the court has to prima facie consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion that the material produced by the prosecution is sufficient or not for convicting the accused. If the court is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge may be framed. The court is to see if there are grounds for prima facie believing that the accused has committed offence, if it finds so, the court shall frame charge against the accused person. 11. In view of the above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as reasons given by learned court below in the order impugned, the order passed by the trial court, seems to be just and proper and this Court finds no illegality, which may call for any interference in the present Revision Petition. 12. With aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay petition also accordingly stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******