JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated 21.02.2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra District Hanumangarh as well as order dated 18.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra District Hanumangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may kindly be ordered to be discharged from the charges levelled against them." 2. As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, the genesis of the dispute is traceable to the complaint submitted by the respondent No. 2-complainant before the learned court below, alleging therein that in respect of sale of an agricultural land, an agreement to sale was executed between the accused-petitioners and the complainant, mentioning therein that the execution of sale (registry) shall be done within a period of two years from the date of such agreement; as against the said agreement, the complainant paid to the petitioners an amount of Rs. 5,57,000/-. And that, instead of making an endeavour to discharge the liability of execution of sale after receiving a huge advance money, the petitioners, with a view to cheat the complainant, instituted a revenue suit, by their wives and sons, in respect of the land in question; whereupon the said land was transferred in their favour, by way of a decree passed by the concerned Court. 2.1. In pursuance of the aforementioned complaint, a case was registered against the petitioners and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them for the offences under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. And that, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2014, framed charges against the accused-petitioners for the aforementioned offences; the revision filed there against was also rejected by the learned Revisional Court, vide the impugned order dated 21.02.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the averments made in the complaint lack substance, and was lodged with the intent to falsely implicate the petitioners in a case of criminal nature, despite the fact that the complete chain of events clearly shows that the dispute in question is purely of civil nature. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the averments made in the complaint lack substance, and was lodged with the intent to falsely implicate the petitioners in a case of criminal nature, despite the fact that the complete chain of events clearly shows that the dispute in question is purely of civil nature. And that, unless it proved that the accused-petitioners have deliberately or intentionally prevented themselves to abide by the terms of the agreement to sale, they cannot be charged with the alleged offences. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the record of the case clearly reveals that the accused-petitioners neither had any intention to commit criminal breach of trust and cheating, nor had they committed such offences. 3.2. Learned counsel thus submitted that the learned Courts below have erred in passing the impugned orders, and not considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidence placed on record. 3.3. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Gopal Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 658/2015, decided on 19.07.2017); Birbal Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1891/2012, decided on 18.08.2017) and; Mohan Ram & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3838/2017). 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent-No. 2, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners had made every possible endeavour to prevent the final execution of sale, of the land in question, in favour of the complainant. 4.1. They also submitted that such conduct of the accused-petitioners squarely falls within the scope of criminal law, and thus, the learned Courts below have rightly passed well reasoned and speaking orders, which do not call for any interference by this Court, more particularly, when as per the settled proposition of law, at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to make any roving enquiry or detailed analysis regarding guilt or innocence of the accused. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. 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 . 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court is only required to prima facie presume whether a case against the accused may be 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. 8. 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. 9. This Court observes that the judgments cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the accused-petitioners do not render any assistance to their case. 10. Resultantly, the present petition fails, and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.