JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to the opposite party no.2 is dispensed with. 3. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-7, Sultanpur, whereby the application of the applicant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. bearing No.8Kha has been rejected in Sessions Trial No.707/2021 "State vs. Om Prakash Maurya and others" in F.I.R. No.424 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Jamo, District Amethi. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that false first information report came to be lodged against the applicant inter alia stating therein that he along with other accused persons assaulted the injured person and thereafter they fled away from the spot. His further submission is that in fact, due to some injuries in his leg, the applicant was operated and a steel plate was filled in his leg, due to which, he was unable to move swiftly. Therefore, this fact itself belies the entire prosecution story that the applicant after allegedly assaulting the deceased ran away from the spot. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate this material aspect of the matter and wrongly held that there was enough material available on record to frame charge. Even otherwise, no material could be collected during investigation which warrants framing of charge against the applicant. 5. In view of the aforesaid, it is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order being palpably illegal deserves to be set aside and a direction needs to be issued to learned court below to reconsider the matter afresh. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that in fact the first information report came to be lodged by the first informant/opposite party no.2 bearing no.0424 of 2020 dated 28.11.2020 at 20:31 Hrs. under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C. against three accused persons including the present applicant. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that in fact the first information report came to be lodged by the first informant/opposite party no.2 bearing no.0424 of 2020 dated 28.11.2020 at 20:31 Hrs. under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C. against three accused persons including the present applicant. It has been stated in the first information report that on 28.11.2020 at about 7 : 00 P.M. when the first informant along with his uncle were returning to their home after buying some household articles, they were assaulted by accused persons, who nourished grudge against the first informant and his uncle due to property dispute. In this incident, injured, Surya Lal was assaulted by lathi, danda and knife, who was taken to hospital for medical treatment. 7. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that afterwards, injured, Surya Lal succumbed to his injures which led to offence of Section 302 I.P.C. in this matter. Therefore, he submits that at this stage, according to settled legal position availability of prima facie material warranting framing of charge against the applicant is enough. No roving or meticulous enquiry is either stipulated or warranted at this stage. Therefore, learned trial Court, after appreciating the law correctly, had passed the impugned order wherein no interference by this Court is warranted. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the first information report came to be lodged by the first informant/opposite party no.2 bearing no.0424 of 2020 dated 28.11.2020 at 20:31 Hrs. under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C. against the three accused persons including the present applicant. The injured, Surya Lal died due to head injuries and therefore, Section 302 I.P.C. came to be added in this matter. The applicant is named in the first information report and all the accused persons have been assigned the role of assaulting the injured by lathi, danda and knife. 9. At the stage of framing charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, whether case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. If the court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. If the court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing charge exists. At the stage of framing charge, probative value of materials on record cannot be gone into. At this stage, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accusation which they are bringing against the accused person is bound to be brought home against him. At the stage of framing charge, the Court has to see if there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in affirmative, the order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face trial. 10. To substantiate aforesaid proposition, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744 and Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 1963 may be usefully referred to. 11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, at this stage, only prima facie availability of material warranting framing of charge against the applicant is enough and no roving enquiry is required to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the prosecution's case. 13. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find illegality or infirmity in the impugned order under challenge. There is no abuse of court's process either. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.is dismissed.