Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. The instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 11/09/2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund in Criminal Revision No.H 24/2024, whereby the order dated 30/05/2024 passed in Criminal Case No.1246 of 2023 passed by the JMFC, Pithoura, Distirct Mahasamund dismissing the application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., has been affirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that that an FIR for the discrepancy made in the loan book (Kisan Kitab) was lodged before the Tehsildar Pithora on 13-03-2018 and 23-03-2018 and before the SDOP of Police Station Pithora on 08-10-2018 that the the petitioner Benjamin Sikka, the then Patwari, took the loan book from the District Office Mahasamund for the Tehsil Office Pithora and did not deposit 800 loan booklets and Kotwar Rudraram Nagvanshi gave 1000 loan books from District Office Mahasamund to Tehsil Office Pithora but 800 loan books were not deposited. In the loan books numbered 1833998 and 2080006 which were not deposited, a fake lease was made in the name of Kheminbai wife Raghunath and Shantibai wife Bhuthel respectively. After investigation of the said complaint, crime number 128/2019 has been registered in Pithora Police Station against Shri Vipin Pradhan, Benjamin Sikka, the then Patwari and Kotwar Rudraram Nagvanshi for tampering with government documents and jointly committing forgery under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B Indian Penal Code. 3. During the investigation of the above crime number 128/2019, it was found that Benjamin Sikka received 3300 loan booklets from the District Magistrate's office between the years 2014 to 2015, but deposited only 2500 loan booklets in the Tehsil office Pithora, he did not give any explanation with regard to 800 loan booklets. Similarly, Kotwar Rudraram Nagvanshi also deposited only 800 loan booklets after receiving 1000 loan booklets. During the said period, accused Vipin Pradhan was looking after the aforesaid work. Thus, against the the above three accused persons a charge-sheet has been filed before the trial court under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the said criminal case, an application was filed before the trial court on 12-02-2024 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners for discharge them from the aforesaid crime. 4. In the said criminal case, an application was filed before the trial court on 12-02-2024 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners for discharge them from the aforesaid crime. The learned trial court, after receiving the reply of the opposition and hearing the arguments of both the parties, dismissed the said application by order dated 30/05/2024. The said rejection order dated 30/05/2024 was subject of challenge in a revision before the Sessions Judge and the revision too was dismissed. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an order directing for registration of FIR on an application filed by Respondent No.3 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be passed by the JMFC and not by the Executive Magistrate /Tehsildar. He would next contend that the said exercise of power is against the dictum passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others {Criminal Appeal No.1620 of 2018, decided on 13/12/2018 } . He would lastly contend that the orders dated 11/09/2024 & 30/05/2024 passed by the Sessions Court and trial Court may be set aside and the petitioners may be discharged from the charges leveled against them. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the orders of the Sessions Judge as well as the JMFC are well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders of both the Courts. 8. Section 240 of Cr.P.C. provides for framing of a charge which reads as under: “240. Framing of charge.- (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.” 9. Reading of Section 240 shows that if, upon consideration of the police report and the documents sent therewith and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary or the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which can be adequately punished by him. 10. The Supreme Court in a case law reported in AIR 2013 SC 52 – Shoraj Singh Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P. /b> has observed that the Court trying the case can direct discharge only for the reasons to be recorded by it and only if it considers that the charges against the accused to be groundless. 11.The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. was again reiterated by their Lordship in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in AIR 2017 SC 796 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that 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. 12. From perusal of the documents it is evident that 3300 loan booklets were received by the petitioner Benjamin Sikka from the District Magistrate's office between 2014 and 2015, but only 2500 loan booklets were deposited in the Tehsil office Pithora and he did not give any account of 800 loan booklets. Similarly, Kotwar Rudraram Nagvanshi also deposited only 800 loan booklets after receiving 1000 loan booklets and the revisionists misused those loan booklets, hence their involvement in the crime is shown. Further, during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the evidence of the parties have started and some of the witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Further, during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the evidence of the parties have started and some of the witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. 13.In view of the above submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and applying the aforesaid principles in this case and further considering the fact that the trial is at the stage of evidence of the witnesses, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of framing of charge at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.