JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- 6670/2019: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed, that this petition of the petitioner may very kindly be allowed, and Order Dated 27.11. 2019 Passed By Learned ADJ No. 2 Hanumangarh, In Criminal Revision No. 188/2019, And Order Dated 26.08.2019 Passed By Learned Judicial Magistrate Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 197/2018 (C.I.S. No. 2876/2018), may be quashed and set aside". 6775/2019: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by Additional District & Session Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in criminal revision case No. 188/2019 where by the affirmed that order dated 26.8.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in criminal case No. 197/2018 of framing charges against the petitioners for offence u/s. 498A & 323 IPC may kindly be set aside". 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that on 19.01.2018 complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted a report before the Mahila Thana Hanumangarh, against the petitioners and others. It was alleged her marriage with the petitioner No. 3-Akeel was solemnized on 16.08.2009, and that her parents gave sufficient dowry to petitioners. It was further alleged that the petitioners were not happy with the dowry articles given by her parents at the time of marriage. On demand of dowry the complainant/respondent No. 2 is subjected to the physical and mental cruelty by the petitioners. The complainant/respondent No. 2 further alleged that petitioner No. 2-Haneefa during her (complainant's) pregnancy pressurized her to perform grinding the wheat, due which her tube was damaged and her pregnancy was terminated. 2.1. However, she blessed with a daughter Heena on 16.11.2011 and her parents gifted some gold and cash amount to the petitioners, but the petitioners not happy with the gift items and birth of the child. The complainant gave birth to another daughter Jasmin in year of 2014. The petitioner No. 3 - Akeel however, performed re-marriage with one Mafia. She further stated that the petitioners continued to demand the dowry and was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the petitioners. 3. The complainant gave birth to another daughter Jasmin in year of 2014. The petitioner No. 3 - Akeel however, performed re-marriage with one Mafia. She further stated that the petitioners continued to demand the dowry and was subjected to harassment and cruelty by the petitioners. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No. 22/2018 was registered at Mahila Thana Hanumangarh, for the offences under Section 498A, 406, 323, 420, 328, 307, 313, 193 and 120B of IPC. The police after investigation filed Final Report only against the petitioner No. 3 for the offence under Section 498A and 323 of IPC. 4. Thereafter, the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court, and the learned Trial Court vide order dated 02.08.2018 allowed the application and took cognizance against Akeel Mohammed, Safi Mohammed, Haneefa Biwi, Wali Mohammed, and Seema under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2019 framed the charge against the Akeel Mohammed, Safi Mohammed, Haneefa Biwi, Wali Mohammed, and Seema under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC. 4.1. The petitioners preferred a criminal revision before learned Session Court against the order dated 26.08.2019, and the learned ADJ No. 2 vide order dated 27.11.2019 dismissed the petition and upheld the learned Trial Court's order dated 26.08.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2009 and FIR was lodged nine years thereafter, for which no explanation was given by the complainant/respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Kamlesh Karla v. Shilpika Karla & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2020, Decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.04.2020); (b) Komal Narang & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) Nos. 1842/2020 and 503/2020 Decided by this Court on 01.09.2021). 6. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for complainant opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences placed on record, to the extent necessary at the stage of the framing of charge. 7. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, along with the judgments cited at the bar. 8. This Court finds that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same, as was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments rendered in Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari and Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 680 and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 290 . 9. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused is made out. And that the facts that emerge from the case may be taken at face value; if they disclose the existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offences, then the charges may be framed. 10. Looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record, this Court does find a case warranting its interference to be made out, at this stage. 11. This Court further observes that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. 12. Resultantly, the present petition fails, and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.