ORDER : 1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 14/2019 by which the trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under Sections 307, 326, 323, 341, 324, 336, 427, 147, 148 & 149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent Daljeet Singh gave a parcha bayan to the effect and when he and his cousin brother Kulveer Singh were going to the field, in the mid way, the present accused persons stopped them and launched an attack causing grievous injuries. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners before the competent court and thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srikaranpur and after arguments on charge, charges were framed against the petitioners for aforesaid offences. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners as none of the injuries are on vital parts of the body of injured therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had intention to cause death. The finding of the police will show that there are cross cases between the parties and both the parties received injuries. From the evidence it appears that it was the complainant party which was the aggressor and caused injuries to petitioners in the first instance followed by free fight. Thus, the offence under Section 307 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent argued that the trial court after considering the injuries as well as statements of other witnesses rightly framed charges against the petitioners and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. The fact with regard to who was the aggressor and who caused injuries first is a matter of trial and cannot be gone into at the stage of framing of charges, therefore, the present revision petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. 6. As per statement of injured, all the accused came armed with weapons and attacked him. As per injury report, the injured received injuries on vital part of the body and injury no. 5. I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. 6. As per statement of injured, all the accused came armed with weapons and attacked him. As per injury report, the injured received injuries on vital part of the body and injury no. 1 of Kulveer Singh is found to be grievous in nature. Both the parties have caused fire arm injuries and trial of the case is to be conducted in Sessions Court. It is settled proposition of law that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the injury should be capable of causing death or should be dangerous to life and only intention has to be seen. So, the Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused-petitioners for offence under Section 307 IPC, in the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record in this case. So far as the argument with regard to the complainant party being aggressor and there being cross cases is concerned, the same is a matter of adjudication during trial as challan of the case has been presented under Section 307 IPC against the complainant party as well. 7. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court has only to see whether the un-rebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, make way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. 8. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. 8. In the case of Sajjan Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. which are as below: “(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the state of Sections 227 & 228, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept al that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.” 9. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2012) 9 SCC 460 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the Court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage. 10. In the case of Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 476 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as below: “While framing charges, court is required to evaluate materials and documents on record to decide whether facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. At this stage, the court is not required to go deep into the probative value of materials on record. It needs to evaluate whether there is a ground for presuming that accused had committed offence. But it should not evaluate sufficiency of evidence to convict accused. Even if there is a grave suspicion against the accused and it is not properly explained or court feels that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charges against the accused is justified. It is only for conviction of accused that materials must indicate that accused had committed offence but for framing of charges if materials indicate that accused might have committed offence, then framing of charge is proper. Materials brought on by prosecution must be believed to be true and their probative value cannot be decided at this stage. The accused entitled to urge his contentions only on materials submitted by prosecution. He is not entitled to produce any material at this stage and the court is not required to consider any such material, if submitted. Whether the prima facie case made out depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. If two views are possible and materials indicate mere suspicion, not being grave suspicion, against accused then he may be discharged. The court has to consider broad probabilities of case, total effect of evidence and documents produced before it. The court should not act as mouthpiece of prosecution and it is impermissible to have roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charge.” 11. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, AIR 2017 SC 796 , while dealing with the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. when the charges had been framed, has held as under: “26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the Accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the Accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the Accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. 27. Now, reverting to the limit of the scope of jurisdiction Under Section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure, which vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. ................... 29. The Court in Para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 particularly in context of quashing of charge framed Under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure Para 27, 27(1), (2), (3), (9), (13) are extracted as follows: “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions, i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1 Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court Under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2 The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3 The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.9 Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.13 Quashing of a charge is an exception to the Rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima-facie. 30. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima-facie. 30. Applying the above tests, we are of the considered opinion that High Court erred in quashing the charges framed by the order dated 05.05.2009. In result, both the appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the order dated 05.05.2009 is restored. The learned Special Judge may proceed with the trial in accordance with the law expeditiously.” 12. Thus, it is well settled legal position that at the stage of framing charge for an offence against an accused only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient grounds are available on record to proceed against him and even strong suspicion is enough to frame charge and at this stage of the proceedings evidence is not required to be analyzed, as it is required to be done at the final stage after trial. It is also well settled that at this stage of the proceedings only the charge-sheet and evidence collected during investigation which has been produced alongwith the charge-sheet is required to be considered. 13. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Major Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1042/2012) decided on 14.01.2013 while considering the above legal position observed as under: “14. At the stage of framing of charge, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about prospect of conviction. The said distinction has been clearly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and Another vs. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 2 SCC 696 . ................. 17. Applying the test in the present case, the allegations are clear. The present petitioner had attacked the injured with deadly weapons: The injured received both blunt and sharp injuries. It is a settled proposition of law that the intention and not the injury is to be seen while determining the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the injuries were simple and there is no finding that the said injuries were dangerous to life, has no merit. It is a settled proposition of law that the intention and not the injury is to be seen while determining the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel that the injuries were simple and there is no finding that the said injuries were dangerous to life, has no merit. As such, no ground to set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2012 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balotra in Cr. Case No. 40/2012 is made out. In view of the above, the present criminal revision petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.” 14. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 307, 326, 323, 341, 324, 336, 427, 147, 148 & 149 IPC. 15. The revision thus being bereft of any force, is hereby rejected. The stay petition also stands rejected.