ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016, Mannan Mallick and Hubban Mallick @ Md. Hubban Mallick are the petitioners and in Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016, Arbind Kumar Singh is the petitioner. 2. Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 was filed by Niraj Singh and Bachha Singh. The proceeding dated 15th February 2021 in this criminal revision petition records statement of Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel that Niraj Singh had in the meantime passed away. 3. By an order dated 23rd July 2021, Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 was dismissed as abated qua Niraj Singh who was petitioner no. 1 in the said criminal revision petition. 4. Initially when these criminal revision petitions were listed before me, there was one more petition filed by Om Prakash Lal @ O.P. Lala vide Criminal Revision No. 1519 of 2016 which was also dismissed as abated on death of Om Prakash Lal @ O.P. Lala. 5. By a common order dated 01st August 2016, the petitions filed under section 227 read with section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by these petitioners and other accused were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad. 6. The learned Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad in the order dated 01st August 2016 has observed that sufficient materials are available on record to frame charges against the accused-applicants. The statements of witnesses recorded in atleast 52 paragraphs of the case-diary and the evidences referred to in paragraph nos. 188, 205, 211, 375, 409 and other paragraphs of the case-diary give prima-facie evidence of use of deadly weapons, explosives etc. which caused death of 4 persons and resulted in injury of 20-25 persons. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Dhanbad has held as under : “Perused the case diary. On perusal of case diary it appears that there is sufficient materials against the accused persons in para-67, 73, 77, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 147, 148, 155, 158, 159, 160, 195, 198, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, 322, 323, 324, 332, 364, and 416. In para-188 it has been mentioned that the injuries found on the person of injured Pramod Bhuiya and Raj Kumar Pasi were caused by explosion whereas the police had not used any explosive and the injured sustained injury due to explosion by the miscreants and the miscreants used explosive in the incident. In para-205 it has been mentioned that the injury found on the person of the injured Dilchand Chouhan at right lower leg in which splinter was recovered was due to explosion and the miscreants used explosive as per case diary. In para-211 it has been mentioned that the deceased Vikash Kumar Singh sustained injury by Sabal, a heavy blunt object and not by fire arm injury. In para-3 75 there is injury report of Md. Kalam. The doctor opined that the injury may be caused by explosion. In para-409 it has been mentioned that five punctured wound were found on the deceased Dinesh Hari and the injuries might be caused due to explosion. The aforesaid facts show that some injured and deceased sustained injuries due to explosion. As per FIR mobs were also using explosive. The petitioners in their petitions have not stated that how the injured and deceased sustained injuries due to explosion. At this stage it cannot be said that the injured and the deceased sustained injuries fired by the police only as the injured and deceased sustained injuries due to explosion too. It is fully a matter of full fledged trial. The presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out. The police and Local administration had not reached near the Coal Board Colony where the alleged quarters were situated and the occurrence took place on the public way where the alleged occurrence took place. In the instant case cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad on 12-08-2011. u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 353, 332, 435 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and u/s 3/4 Explosive Substance Act and u/s 3/4 P.D.P.P. Act. There is sufficient materials to proceed in the case. In the instant case cognizance has been taken by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad on 12-08-2011. u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 353, 332, 435 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act and u/s 3/4 Explosive Substance Act and u/s 3/4 P.D.P.P. Act. There is sufficient materials to proceed in the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 3967 has held that charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime by the accused as against the certainty In Barnadatt Karketta v. State of Jharkhand, 2003 (2) JLJR 54 it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that charge can even be framed on the material on record capable of inferring strong suspicion about the commission of offence. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case and (he material available on the record I find that there is sufficient materials available on the record to frame charge. Hence, the petitions filed by the all the accused persons are hereby rejected. All accused persons are directed to remain physically present on 16-08-2016 for framing of charge.” 8. Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel, has raised two-fold contentions; (i) the petitioners who were not physically involved in the occurrence cannot be roped in with other accused, and (ii) there is no material to prima-facie establish involvement of the petitioners except the alleged speech by Mannan Mallick. The learned senior counsel would contend that the inquiries conducted in the matter revealed that the police action was unauthorized and a protest was made by thousands of persons, who came on the scene much before the petitioners arrived there. 9. Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016, submits that the petitioner who is a student has been falsely roped in this case merely on suspicion. It is contended that there is no material against this petitioner that he either used any force or instigated the mob and, therefore, there is absolute dearth of legally admissible material against this petitioner. 10. It is contended that there is no material against this petitioner that he either used any force or instigated the mob and, therefore, there is absolute dearth of legally admissible material against this petitioner. 10. A First Information Report was lodged on 27th April 2011 vide Dhanbad Bank More PS Case No. 342 of 2011 on the basis of a written report submitted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad under sections 147/148/149/323/324/307/353/332/435 of the Penal Code, 1860, section 27 of the Arms Act, section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act and under section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The petitioners are among 27 named accused who alongwith 8-10 thousand persons were involved in vandalism. Subsequently, section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 was added in the report vide order dated 25th May 2011. A glance at the written report would reveal that the complainant was deputed to oversee the entire operation for removal of illegal encroachments over BCCL quarters. There was a briefing conducted at police line at 07:30 AM with officers of BCCL, police officers as well as Magistrates and the operation for removing illegal encroachments started at around 09:00 AM. The complainant observed that within 15 minutes about 2000 persons carrying deadly weapons gathered there and started pelting stone at the task force. The complainant issued warnings on loudspeaker and directed the police personnel to disperse the mob, however, the mob became unruly and attacked the police personnel and police vehicles. Several rounds of tear gas were used and he ordered use of lathi charge by the police personnel in self defence. 11. Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel states that this is the stage when Mannan Mallick who was the local M.L.A. and Niraj Singh who was the Deputy Mayor appeared at the scene and after some time they were taken into custody and sent to the police station and, therefore, Mannan Mallick can be held responsible for subsequent violence. 12. Section 108 of the Penal Code, 1860 defines the expression “Abettor”. 12. Section 108 of the Penal Code, 1860 defines the expression “Abettor”. The abetment of a thing which is described under section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 can take place in three manners : first by instigation to any person to do that thing; or engage with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy or in order to the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Section 109 of the Penal Code, 1860 provides that if there is no express provision made in the Code for punishment of an act abetted the abettor shall be punished in the same manner as if he has committed the main offence. 13. The allegation against Mannan Mallick is that he gave provocative speech as a result of which 3-4 thousand persons became violent and again started pelting stone. The complainant records that he had to again issue warning through loudspeaker to disperse the mob, however, when the efforts did not succeed Mannan Mallick and Niraj Singh were arrested. It appears that the agitation continued and about 8-10 thousand persons pelted stones, destroyed government vehicles and attacked the government and police personnel. The situation became so violent that 65 rounds of firing was resorted to by the police personnel. Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel, has pointed out that the alleged firing made by the mob about which a reference is made in the written complaint had come from the other side. I think this would make no difference as regards involvement and liability of the petitioners in the incident. 14. Sri. R.S. Mazumdar, the learned senior counsel, has referred to the letter dated 30th March 2013. An application vide I.A. (Cr.) No. 6488 of 2018 has also been filed for calling for the report of Commissioner, Hazaribag. 15. From the materials on record including the letter dated 30th March 2013, it becomes clear that an inquiry was conducted pursuant to an order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (P.I.L) No. 1783 of 2011. The reports submitted by the authorities, as would appear from the materials on record, was that there was no order for eviction of 18 houses which were also included in the encroachments drive. The reports submitted by the authorities, as would appear from the materials on record, was that there was no order for eviction of 18 houses which were also included in the encroachments drive. The plea taken by the accused is that the entire operation carried out by the district administration was illegal. But for this reason their plea that they were not involved in the occurrence cannot be accepted. 16. I find that several accused were arrested from the hospital where they were being treated for injuries suffered in the occurrence; there are specific allegations against several accused and; defence put forth by the petitioners is prima-facie untenable. 17. As regards the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016, I would just indicate that section 141 of the Penal Code, 1860 which defines unlawful assembly provides that assembly of five or more persons, if the object of the assembly was to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means, shall be designated as unlawful assembly. Section 146 defines rioting to mean that wherever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 is also in the same terms which makes every member of the unlawful assembly liable for the act of one or the other. The second part of section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 further makes it clear that any overt act by every member of the unlawful assembly is not necessary and mere knowledge that common object of the unlawful assembly was the act accomplished is sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon each accused. The petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 had gone to the place where more than 2000 persons had assembled and one of them delivered provocative speech which according to the prosecution instigated the mob and they again started pelting stone. Insofar as the role of Arbind Kumar Singh who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016 is concerned, it cannot be believed that in such a violent situation he was a passerby or just an onlooker. 18. Insofar as the role of Arbind Kumar Singh who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016 is concerned, it cannot be believed that in such a violent situation he was a passerby or just an onlooker. 18. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the Court is not permitted to make a roving inquiry or sift the evidence so as to find whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction, rather the test is whether a prima-facie case as alleged by the prosecution is made out against the accused. 19. In “Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja” (1979) 4 SCC 274 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to he applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” 20. In “Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI” (2018) 16 SCC 299 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “consideration of the challenge against an order of framing charge may not require meticulous examination of voluminous material which may be in the nature of a mini trial”. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 01st August 2016 passed in S.T. Case No. 443 of 2012 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016, Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016 are dismissed. 22. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 01st August 2016 passed in S.T. Case No. 443 of 2012 and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016, Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 1528 of 2016 are dismissed. 22. The interim order dated 06th September 2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1176 of 2016 and the interim order dated 28th November 2016 passed in I.A. (Cr.) No. 7885 of 2016 filed in Criminal Revision No. 1239 of 2016 are vacated. 23. The learned trial Court shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 24. The petitioners shall appear before the Court concerned on 12th November 2021. 25. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through ‘FAX’.