JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16th March, 2015 framing charges for the offence under Sections 5, 6 & 23 of Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques Act (for short "PCPNDT Act"). A challenge to the said order by a revision petition also failed, as the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 12th March, 2015. 2. Learned counsel submits that case was initiated on a complaint, thus pre-charge evidence was recorded. The lady turned hostile, thus no case remained as other three witnesses were not having independent knowledge but was in reference to what was informed by the lady. In view of above, the petitioners should have been discharged by applying Section 245 of Cr.P.C. Learned court below failed to consider the aforesaid while framing charges. 3. It is also stated that no diagnose was made otherwise, as per alleged information for birth of boy, girl would not have taken birth. It is a fact on record that lady concerned, had given birth to a girl. In the background aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be quashed because when the main witness did not support the prosecution case in pre-charge evidence, conviction would be impossible. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. A case was registered on a complaint under Section 28 of PCPNDT Act. The pre-charge evidence was recorded thereupon. The lady turned hostile, however, three witnesses made statements supporting the prosecution case, though according to the petitioner/s, it was demolished in the cross examination. 7. The question is as to whether the charges can be framed even if the star witnesses have turned hostile. The argument aforesaid was considered by the Revisional Court in detail. 8. To appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has also gone through the statements of the witnesses, so as other material, apart from the impugned orders. 9. Before answering the question raised herein, it would be necessary to indicate that at the stage of hearing of case for framing of charges, only prima facie case is to be seen and not that the evidence should be of such a nature, which may lead to conviction. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the case has to be examined. 9. Before answering the question raised herein, it would be necessary to indicate that at the stage of hearing of case for framing of charges, only prima facie case is to be seen and not that the evidence should be of such a nature, which may lead to conviction. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the case has to be examined. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, they have supported the prosecution case. The reference of cross examination has been given where certain questions were raised with their answer. I do not find that statements were demolished in the cross examination so as to discharge the accused. 10. Looking to the aforesaid and the stage, I do find that any illegality has been committed by the Court below while framing charges. It is also to be noted that after framing charges, the revision petition was preferred and now a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but becomes a second revision petition and as per the earlier judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not maintainable but in few cases, it is held maintainable where gross abuse of process is shown. The case of the aforesaid nature is not made out. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. This disposes of the stay application as well. 12. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this judgment would not affect or prejudice the trial. Petition Dismissed.